jackson county oklahoma 2040 long range...

SORTPO Policy Board Adopted on September 28, 2017

Amendment #1

JACKSON COUNTY OKLAHOMA

2040 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

2040 Jackson County LRTP

Southwest Oklahoma Regional Transportation Planning Organization

Prepared by: South Western Oklahoma Development Authority

Bldg. 420 Sooner Drive Burns Flat, OK 73624

580-562-4882 www.sortpo.org

In cooperation and coordination with:

Cities and Towns of Jackson County Jackson County

Red River Oklahoma Transit Providers Oklahoma Department of Transportation

Federal Highways Administration South Western Oklahoma Development Authority

Altus Air Force Base

Publication of this document was financed in part by funds provided by the United States Department of Transportation,

Federal Highway Administration. The provision of federal financial assistance should not be construed as denoting US Government approval of plans, policies, programs or projects contained herein.

The Southwest Oklahoma Regional Transportation Planning Organization (SORTPO) complies with all civil rights provisions of federal statues and related authorities that prohibit discrimination in programs and activities receiving

federal financial assistance. Therefore, SORTPO does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin,

religion or disability, in the admission, access to and treatment in SORTPO programs and activities.


Table of Content

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Map ES1: SORTPO Region ............................................................................................................................................. 3 KEY ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND TRENDS ................................................................................................................................ 4

Key Issues: ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Challenges: .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Trends: .................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Table ES1: Jackson County Transportation Projects and Areas of Concern ............................................. 5 Table ES2: Jackson County Transportation Projects, ODOT .......................................................................... 6

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION, GOALS AND KEY ISSUES ............................................................................ 1

HISTORY ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Map 1.1: SORTPO Region............................................................................................................................................... 2

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING .............................................................................................................................. 2 PURPOSE OF PLAN ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 RELATIONSHIP AND REQUIREMENTS WITH STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES ................................................................. 4

Table 1.1: Planning Factors ......................................................................................................................................... 4 GOALS AND STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................................................................... 5

Table 1.2: Jackson County Goal Categories ............................................................................................................ 6 Goal 1: Accessibility and Mobility .............................................................................................................................. 7 Goal 2: Awareness, Education and Cooperative Process .................................................................................. 7 Goal 3: Freight & Economic Vitality .......................................................................................................................... 8 Goal 4: Environment ....................................................................................................................................................... 8 Goal 5: Finance and Funding ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Goal 6: Maintenance and Preservation ................................................................................................................... 9 Goal 7: Safety and Security ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Goal 8: Community & Health ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Goal 9: Tourism & Travel ............................................................................................................................................ 10

KEY ISSUES, CHALLENGES AND TRENDS .............................................................................................................................. 11 Key Issues: ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Challenges: ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Trends: ................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

CHAPTER 2: CURRENT CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................ 13

HISTORY .................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Map 2.1 Jackson County Transportation System ............................................................................................... 14 Table 2.1: Jackson County Population 1980-2014 Estimate ......................................................................... 16 Figure 2.1: Jackson County, Civilian Labor Force 1990 – 2015 .................................................................... 17 Figure 2.2: Jackson County, Civilian Labor Force, Annual not seasonally adjusted, 1990 – 2014 . 18 Figure 2.3: Jackson County, 2000 & 2014 Jackson County Business Pattern .......................................... 18 Figure 2.4: Jackson County Vehicle Registration, 2011-2015 ...................................................................... 19

TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS AND CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 20

Map 2.2: Jackson County Traffic Analysis Zones ................................................................................................ 22 Map 2.3: Altus Area Traffic Analysis Zones .......................................................................................................... 23 Map 2.4: Blair Area Traffic Analysis Zones ......................................................................................................... 24 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Source: SWODA ............................................................................................................................................................... 24

PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES............................................................................................................................................................ 25 COLLISIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 25

Table 2.2: Jackson County Collision Concentration, 2012- 2016 ................................................................. 26 Figure 2.5: Jackson County, Collision by Vehicle Type 2012-2016 .............................................................. 27


AREAS OF CONCERN................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 2.3: Jackson County Transportation Areas of Concern ....................................................................... 28

EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK ............................................................................................................................................ 28 Traffic Count .................................................................................................................................................................... 29 Functional Classification and Road System ......................................................................................................... 29 Bridges ................................................................................................................................................................................ 30 Traffic Control ................................................................................................................................................................. 31

FREIGHT SYSTEM ..................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Map 2.11: National Highway Freight Network, Oklahoma ........................................................................... 32 Table 2.4: Jackson County Significant Freight Corridors .............................................................................. 33 Map 2.12: SORTPO Significant Freight Corridors ............................................................................................ 34 Figure 2.6: Average Daily Long-Haul Traffic on NHS 2011 ........................................................................... 35 Map 2.13: High Volume Truck Corridors 2014 Analysis ................................................................................. 36 Map 2.14: Ports of Entry .............................................................................................................................................. 37

RAIL ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 37 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN NETWORK ................................................................................................................................. 39 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 AVIATION ................................................................................................................................................................................... 41

Table 2.5: SORPTO Public Airports......................................................................................................................... 41

CHAPTER 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................... 43

FUTURE CONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................................................. 43 Figure 3.1: Projected Average Daily Long-Haul Traffic on NHS 2040 ...................................................... 44

2040 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................................................... 45 Improvements .................................................................................................................................................................. 45 Table 3.1: Future Projects ........................................................................................................................................... 45

CHAPTER 4: FINANCIAL SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 48

FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................................................................................ 48 Federal ................................................................................................................................................................................ 48 State ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 4.1: State Funding Categories ....................................................................................................................... 49 County ................................................................................................................................................................................. 51 Local .................................................................................................................................................................................... 52

CHAPTER 5: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SUMMARY ................................................................................... 53

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ...................................................................................................................................................... 53 COORDINATION WITH OTHER PLANS ................................................................................................................................... 53

CHAPTER 6: TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................... 55

COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................................................................................ 55

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................... 56

APPENDIX A: RESOLUTION 09-04 ....................................................................................................................................... 57 APPENDIX B: RESOLUTION 16-06 ....................................................................................................................................... 58 APPENDIX C: ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................................ 59 APPENDIX D: DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................................................... 62 APPENDIX 1: PERFORMANCE MEASURES ............................................................................................................................ 65

APPENDIX 2: CURRENT CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................... 67

Appendix 2.1: Jackson County, Socio Economic Information, 2010-2014 ................................................ 67 Appendix 2.2: Jackson County, Housing Occupancy 2010-2014 .................................................................. 68 Appendix 2.3: Jackson County, Educational Attainment 2010 – 2014 ACS ............................................. 69 Appendix 2.4: Jackson County, Housing Units and Vehicles Available 2010– 2014 ACS ................ 70 Appendix 2.5: Jackson County, Employment Status and Commute to Work 2010 – 2014 ACS ....... 71 Appendix 2.6: Jackson County Occupation and Industry 2010 – 2014 ACS ............................................. 72


Appendix 2.7: Mode of Travel to Work Jackson County, 2010-14 ACS ...................................................... 73 Appendix 2.8: Jackson County 2010 Population and Employment by TAZ .............................................. 74 Appendix 2.9: Jackson County Major Employers ................................................................................................ 76 Appendix 2.10: Tribal Jurisdiction Map ................................................................................................................. 82 Appendix 2.11: Environmental and Development Concerns ......................................................................... 83 Appendix 2.12: Environmental Features Table .................................................................................................. 84 Appendix 2.13: Jackson County Collision Total, 2012-2016 .......................................................................... 84 Appendix 2.14: Jackson County Collisions by Type of Collisions, 2012 – 2016 ....................................... 84 Appendix 2.15: Jackson County Vehicle by Vehicle Type, 2012 – 2016 ..................................................... 85 Appendix 2.16: Jackson County Collision Locations, 2012-2016 ................................................................. 87 Appendix 2.17: Jackson County Collision by Driver Condition, 2012 – 2016 .......................................... 87 Appendix 2.18: Two Lane Highways Without Paved Shoulders .................................................................. 90 Appendix 2.19: Steep Hills and Sharp Curves ...................................................................................................... 91 Appendix 2.20: Jackson County Traffic Count Data and Map, 2014 ........................................................... 92 Appendix 2.21: Functional Classification and Road Systems ........................................................................ 93 Level of Service ................................................................................................................................................................ 95 Appendix 2.22: Jackson County Functional Classification Map .................................................................... 97 Appendix 2.23: Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Bridges .............................................. 98 Appendix 2.24: Jackson County On- System Bridges with Sufficiency Rate ............................................. 99 Appendix 2.25: Jackson County Off- System Bridges ..................................................................................... 101 Appendix 2.26: National Highway Freight Network – Oklahoma ........................................................... 115

APPENDIX 3: FUTURE CONDITIONS ...................................................................................................... - 117 -

Appendix 3.1: Jackson County 2040 Population and Employment Projections by TAZ .............. - 117 - Appendix 3.2: ODOT 8-year Construction Work Program 2017-2024 ................................................... 119

APPENDIX 4: FINANCIAL ................................................................................................................................. 120

Appendix 4.1: Federal Funding Categories ....................................................................................................... 120 Appendix 4.2: Funding Category Summary ...................................................................................................... 121 Appendix 4.3: Apportionment of Statutory Revenues ................................................................................... 122 Appendix 4.4: Jackson County CIRB Funding FY 2015-2019 ...................................................................... 122

APPENDIX 5: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ..................................................................................................... 123

Appendix 5.1: Jackson County Socio Economic Characteristics ................................................................ 123 Appendix 5.2: Survey .................................................................................................................................................. 124

APPENDIX 5.3: PUBLIC OUTREACH ................................................................................................................................. 135 APPENDIX 6: RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................................. 138

Appendix 6.1: Jackson County Transportation Projects ............................................................................... 138


ES Page 1

Executive Summary In 1970, Oklahoma’s governor established eleven (11) sub-state planning districts. Subsequently, the local governments served by the planning districts created the eleven (11) Councils of Governments (COGs) using the sub-state planning district boundaries. These districts make up the Oklahoma Association of Regional Councils (OARC). South Western Oklahoma Development Authority (SWODA) and the Association of South Central Oklahoma Governments are two of the eleven (11) COGs. In April 2012, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) entered into an agreement with OARC to oversee development of the regional transportation planning process and the regional public participation process in the non-metropolitan areas of the state. Three councils of governments were selected as pilot projects: SWODA, NODA and COEDD. SWODA on October 13th, 2009 by Resolution 09-04 (Appendix A) created the Southwest Oklahoma Regional Transportation Planning Organization (SORTPO) and was tasked with the responsibility of developing a regional plan that included preparation of eight (8) county plans. In Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2016, through a collaborative effort involving SORTPO, the Association of South Central Oklahoma Governments (ASCOG) and the ODOT a transportation planning pilot project comprising sixteen counties was initiated representing two Councils of Governments: SWODA and ASCOG. The SWODA Board of Trustees adopted Resolution 16-06 (Appendix B) amending the SORTPO region (Map 1.1). Total population for SORTPO according to the 2010 US Census Bureau was 416,257. Population data obtained from the 2011-2015 ACS estimates the population has increased to 422,165. Although much of the region is comprised of large tracts of farming and agriculture lands there are multiple areas that contain urbanized areas that feature regional medical facilities, universities, military installations and governmental offices. Each county in the region although a separate entity as far as governmental services the counties are linked through commerce, employment and regional transportation. Population growth and shifts for the SORPTO region are dependent on many factors depending on a particular county. Jackson County’s deviation in the population and employment patterns are attributed to Altus Air Force Base and related services. All aspects of the planning process are overseen by the SORTPO Policy Board. The SORTPO Technical Committee serves as the advisory group for transportation planning and policy initiatives. This committee reviews transportation planning work efforts and provides a recommendation to the SORTPO Policy Board for their consideration and action. The day-to-day


ES Page 2

activities of SORTPO are supported by a by staff located in the SWODA (Burns Flat) and ASCOG (Duncan) offices. Staff, equipment, supplies, rent, consulting studies, and other expenses used to support staffing operations are reimbursable to SORTPO through ODOT by the FHWA State Planning & Research (SPR) program funds. SORTPO is reimbursed up to 80% of the total amount of the work effort as detailed in the Planning Work Program and the local match of 20% is provided by SWODA and ASCOG. Jackson County is in the southwest region (Map ES1) of Oklahoma on the south boundary of the SWODA region and covers 904 square miles. In 2014 (2010-2014) American Community Survey (ACS), the county population was twenty-six thousand, two hundred and seventy-five (26,275) resulting in a population density of 35 people per square mile. The County includes nine (9) areas designated as a city or town, the largest being the city of Altus. The City of Altus encompasses 16.8 square miles, with a population of nineteen thousand eight hundred thirteen (19,813) (2010-2014 ACS); the primary industries are agriculture, education, health care and governmental (Altus Air Force Base). Located in the middle of the County, Altus is located approximately 35 miles north of the Texas line and 12 miles south of the Greer County line, and approximately 26 miles west from the Harmon County line and 23 miles east of Kiowa County. Altus is the County seat of Jackson County and is also the highest employment center of Jackson County. Some of the employment options are the Air Force Base, Jackson County Memorial Hospital, Bar-S-Foods, Retail Stores, Education and agriculture industry being the higher of the employment.

➢ The second largest City (by population) is the City of Blair, with a land area of 5.61 square miles and a population of eight hundred-eighteen (818) (2010-2014 ACS).

➢ The third largest community in Jackson County is the Town of Olustee

with a population density 823.8 people per square mile. It has a population of on six-hundred and seven (607) (2010-2014 ACS).

➢ Following in population for Jackson County are the Towns of Eldorado

(446), Duke (424), Martha (162), Elmer (96), Headrick (93) and Friendship (24).

The LRTP establishes the goals, objectives and transportation strategies for addressing the region’s transportation needs. This planning process follows the three “c’s” identified by federal transportation regulations: continuing, cooperation and comprehensive.


ES Page 3

Map ES1: SORTPO Region

Source: SWODA

Regional transportation planning is a collaborative process designed to foster participation by all interested parties, such as business community, community groups, elected officials and the general public, through a proactive public participation process. The public participation process is carried out through public outreach such as transportation surveys sent out to the public by means of website, civic organizations, entity disbursements and public meetings held throughout the region. The results of the surveys and stakeholder meetings were used to develop goals and guide the development of the long-range transportation plan (LRTP). SORTPO held numerous open meetings to discuss the Jackson County 2040 LRTP. These goals provide a blueprint for the development of a safer, accessible and more efficient transportation system. The primary goals of the Jackson County Long Range Transportation Plan include: accessibility and mobility, awareness/education, economic vitality, environment, finance and funding, maintenance and preservation, and safety and security. These goals assist in the decision-making process for prioritization of projects and implementation of the LRTP. Extensive use of telecommunications was used as a means of public outreach such as social media (SWODA’s Facebook page), online surveying and the development of a website dedicated to SORTPO’s regional planning.


ES Page 4

Key Issues, Challenges and Trends Rural communities have problematic transportation areas even if they do not experience congestion. Understanding the true nature of the problem at these locations and developing a plan to address them is an important part of rural planning. Unanticipated changes may happen that can have impacts on a city, town, county or region. There are many issues facing the area that have a direct or indirect impact on the transportation system. There are many issues facing the area that have a direct or indirect impact on the transportation system. This section is intended to identify these issues, trends and challenges. At the onset of the transportation planning process, the SORTPO staff, policy board and technical committee members identified key issues, trends and challenges that impact the transportation system. Key issues, challenges and trends were also identified through public surveys (Appendix 5.2), stakeholder meetings, public comments, other plans, data sources, and reports. Key Issues: • Access to healthcare and emergency services. • State of Oklahoma budget. • Limited Transit Services. • Forced school consolidations due to state of the State’s flat revenues and

multiple year budget cuts. • Lack of shoulders on 2 lane highways. • Urban versus rural mindset. • Improvements of rail crossings. • Lack of funding to adequately maintain roadway systems and bridges. • Problematic traffic issue locations (areas with high accidents, intersections,

truck generators).

Challenges: • Maintain access to health services. • Age of infrastructure. • Attracting workforce to support the employment needs • Access to affordable to high speed internet. • Lack of funding to adequately maintain roadway systems and bridges. • Competition for industry/business. • Working together regionally to attract/maintain workforce, industry and

community • Funding limitation - revenues continue to be limited to meet the

transportation system needs over time. • Expand community and regional services that support the mission of Altus

Air Force Base. • Maintain access to health care and emergency services.


ES Page 5

• Lack of system to reevaluate how, when and where new roads are built versus investment in upgrade to the existing road system.

Trends: • Population is declining in the rural areas. • Freight traffic will grow. • Population and employment growth in the County dependent on Altus Air

Force Base. • The population is aging. • Motor vehicles will continue to be the primary means of transportation. • The energy sector and farming community will continue to rely heavily on

trucks in rural areas. • Technology impact on retail, employment and how medical services are

obtained. • Autonomous vehicle technology. • State of Oklahoma’s budget negative impact on rural communities. Data collected from community members and through public meetings were used to identify local transportation projects and areas of concern (Table ES1). Table ES2 includes a list of projects through the year 2040. The table includes projects identified in ODOT’s 8 Year Construction Work Program 2017-2024, Asset Preservation Plan 2017-2020, CIRB 2017-2021 and potential projects funded by SPR funds. Other projects include development of studies, plans, and collection of data that can be included in SORTPO’s Planning Work Program (PWP). Table ES1: Jackson County Transportation Projects and Areas of Concern

CITY / TOWN

LOCATION DESCRIPTION

Altus Falcon Road from Main St. to Park Lane

Full replacement and widening of roadway to construction super 3 lane street with concrete pavement

Altus Navajoe Gateway Project Phase V from Navajoe St. to Horizon Dr.

Street Scape improvements new sidewalks and new curb and gutters.

Altus Ridgecrest Rd. and Carver Rd. from Broadway to Ridgecrest Rd.

Milling, Chip and Seal resurfacing

Altus N. Park Lane to Falcon Rd. and Tamarack Rd.

Extend sidewalk on N. Park Lane to Falcon Rd. and E. Tamarack Rd.

Altus Falcon Rd. from N. Main St. to Veterans Dr.

Add sidewalk during planning widening and paving of Falcon Rd.

Altus Tamarack Rd. Intersection with Main St.

Widen east side approach to add turn lane full pavement replacement upgrade signalization.


ES Page 6

CITY / TOWN

LOCATION DESCRIPTION

Altus Upgrade Carver Rd. and Market Rd. from Ridgecrest to Tamarack Rd..

Full replacement of roadway and widening to serve as west truck bypass.

Altus Falcon Rd from Park Lane to Veterans Dr.


Altus Intersection of N. Park Lane and Tamarack Rd.

Replace stop signs with signalization.

Altus A Street, Grady Street, East Ridgecrest Rd, Commerce Street, Cypress Street

Overlay various City Streets

Altus City of Altus 2017 Transportation Improvement Plan thru 2040

Trails

Altus City of Altus 2017 Transportation Improvement Plan thru 2040

Pedestrian Facilities

Altus S. County Rd. 210 Narrow road needs widen /no shoulders a lot of traffic. Going toward Navajo.

Altus Tamarack Rd. /Falcon Rd. Reduce Speed Altus Tamarack Rd. Turning lanes and Light Altus Falcon Broadway/Tamarack

Rd. Need sidewalks and bike lanes

Blair US Hwy 283/ Hwy 19 Need a stop light to slow traffic down. Jackson Co.

US Hwy 283 Irrigation concerns south of Altus

Jackson Co.

US Hwy 283/ Hwy 44 Accidents at the intersection

Source: SORTPO

Table ES2: Jackson County Transportation Projects, ODOT

LOCATION YEAR DESCRIPTION FUNDING

Jackson County 2017-2021

Develop a clearinghouse for regional data sets, such as pavement management systems and geographic information systems.

SPR/LOCAL


Conduct a freight assessment for the county.

SPR/LOCAL


ES Page 7



Develop a system to collect and monitor changes in population, employment, and major employers by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ).

SPR/LOCAL


Develop data collection standards. SPR/LOCAL


Establish procedures that enhance the consultation and coordination of transportation planning with local, regional, state and tribal government representatives.

SPR/LOCAL


Conduct study at intersection locations with high accident severity index and corridors with major attractors.

SPR/LOCAL

JACKSON 28778(06) UTILITIES

2017-2021

SH-6: OVER UNNAMED CREEK, 2.6 MILES N.E. OF SH-34 UT FOR 28778(04)

$10,278

JACKSON 30085(06) RIGHT OF WAY

2017-2021

GRADE, DRAIN SURFACE (EW-165) BEG.AT US-283/EW-165 JCT EXT. WEST 1.0 MI. & EXT. 2.0 MI. NORTH ON NS-2030 TO (EW-163) RIGHT OF WAY FOR 3008504

$20,000


2017-2021

SH-6: OVER UNNAMED CREEK 2.6 MILES N.E. OF SH-34 RW FOR 28778(04)

$34,215

JACKSON 30698(05) CONTRACT PE (AS OF 10/1/2013)

2017-2021

BRIDGE AND APPROACHES (NS-198) OVER UNNAMED CREEK, LOCATED 4.3 MI NORTH AND 0.8 MI WEST OF Olustee. (ENGINEERING)

$45,000


2017-2021

BRIDGE AND APPROACHES OVER BITTER CREEK LOCATED 3.0 MILES SOUTH AND 2.9 MILES WEST OF US 283/US 62 JCT

$45,000


2017-2021

RECONSTRUCT NAVAJO ROAD (PHASE II) PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

$100,000


ES Page 8


JACKSON BRIDGE REHABILITATION

2017-2021

SH-6; BRIDGE REHAB OVER GYPSUM CREEK, 1.2 MILES NE OF SH-34 JCT

$250,000


2017-2021


$400,000

JACKSON RESURFACE

2017-2021

SH-19 BEGIN AT THE US-283 JCT AND EXTEND EAST 1.60 MILES.

$413,893

JACKSON 30698(04) BRIDGE & APPROACHES

2017-2021

BRIDGE AND APPROACHES (NS-198) OVER UNNAMED CREEK, LOCATED 4.3 MI NORTH AND 0.8 MI WEST OF Olustee.

$437,500


2017-2021


$437,500


2017-2021

CO BR: EW-1550 OVER TRIB. OF BITTER CREEK,1.0 MILE SOUTH & 1.4 MILE WEST OF JCT. US-283/SH-19 IN Blair

$437,500

JACKSON 3272604 BRIDGE REHABILITATION

2017-2021

US-62: US-62 OVER TURKEY CREEK, 3.7 MILES EAST OF HARMON C/L.

$950,000

JACKSON RESURFACE

2017-2021

SH-6; BEGIN 8.77 MI NE OF SH-34 & EXT. NORTH 6.06 MILES

$1,242,780

JACKSON 30060(04) GRADE & DRAIN

2017-2021

RECONSTRUCT NAVAJO ROAD (PHASE II)

$2,000,000

JACKSON RESURFACE

2017-2021

US-62 BEGIN 365 FEET WEST OF THE SH-34 JCT AND EXTEND EAST 7.56 MI TO THE DIVIDED 4 LANE SECTION.

$2,126,008

Jackson County 2022 – 2026

Develop method to track the implementation of projects and regularly update the public on the status of projects, programs and finances.

SPR/LOCAL


ES Page 9



Identify the locations of major employment centers, including existing and proposed developments and identify types of transportation available

SPR/LOCAL


Working with area employers and stakeholders develop a database and map identifying transportation needs

SPR/LOCAL


Develop database and mapping to identify the County’s underrepresented

SPR/LOCAL


Develop a data file and create a map identifying location of wind farms and pipelines and relationship to communities and the transportation system.

SPR/LOCAL


Develop a regional map that identifies tourism destinations and regionally significant facilities

SPR/LOCAL


Collect and routinely analyze safety and security data by mode and severity to identify changes and trends.

SPR/LOCAL



SPR/LOCAL



SPR/LOCAL



SPR/LOCAL


ES Page 10




SPR/LOCAL

Source: ODOT, SORTPO

The 2040 Jackson County LRTP provides a strategic framework to ensure that the multiple agencies work continuously, cooperatively, and comprehensively to implement the Plan in a coordinated fashion. Public input is an important aspect of the transportation planning process. Please visit www.SORTPO.org for more information about SORTPO and to view the full LRTP. For more information on the 2040 Jackson County Long Range Transportation Plan, please contact:

Becky Cockrell, SORTPO South Western Oklahoma Development Authority

PO Box 569, 420 Sooner Dr. Burns Flat, OK 73624

580-562-4882 ext.118 [email protected]

or visit www.sortpo.org

http://www.sortpo.org/

mailto:[email protected]



Page 1

Chapter 1: Introduction, Goals and Key Issues History In 1970, Oklahoma’s governor established eleven (11) sub-state planning districts. Subsequently, the local governments served by the planning districts created the eleven (11) Councils of Governments (COGs) using the sub-state planning district boundaries. These districts make up the Oklahoma Association of Regional Councils (OARC). South Western Oklahoma Development Authority (SWODA) is one (1) of the eleven (11) COGs. In April 2012, the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) entered into an agreement with OARC to oversee development of the regional transportation planning process and the regional public participation process in the non-metropolitan areas of the state. Three councils of governments were selected as pilot projects: SWODA, NODA and COEDD. SWODA on October 13th,2009 by Resolution 09-04 (Appendix A) created the Southwest Oklahoma Regional Transportation Planning Organization (SORTPO) and was tasked with the responsibility of developing a regional plan that included preparation of eight (8) county plans. In Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2016, through a collaborative effort involving SORTPO, the Association of South Central Oklahoma Governments (ASCOG) and the ODOT a transportation planning pilot project comprising sixteen counties was initiated representing two Councils of Governments: SWODA and ASCOG. The SWODA Board of Trustees adopted Resolution 16-06 (Appendix B) amending the SORTPO region (Map 1.1). Total population for SORTPO according to the 2010 US Census Bureau was 416,257. Population data obtained from the 2011-2015 ACS estimates the population has increased to 422,165. Although much of the region is comprised of large tracts of farming and agriculture lands there are multiple areas that contain urbanized areas that feature regional medical facilities, universities, military installations and governmental offices. Each county in the region although a separate entity as far as governmental services the counties are linked through commerce, employment and regional transportation. Population growth and shifts for the SORPTO region are dependent on many factors depending on a particular county. Jackson County’s deviation in the population and employment patterns are attributed to Altus Air Force Base and related services.


Page 2

Map 1.1: SORTPO Region

Source: SWODA

All aspects of the planning process are overseen by the SORTPO Policy Board. The SORTPO Technical Committee serves as the advisory group for transportation planning and policy initiatives. This committee reviews transportation planning work efforts and provides a recommendation to the SORTPO Policy Board for their consideration and action. The day-to-day activities of SORTPO are supported by a by staff located in the SWODA (Burns Flat) and ASCOG (Duncan) offices. Staff, equipment, supplies, rent, consulting studies, and other expenses used to support staffing operations are reimbursable to SORTPO through ODOT by the FHWA State Planning & Research (SPR) program funds. SORTPO is reimbursed up to 80% of the total amount of the work effort as detailed in the Planning Work Program and the local match of 20% is provided by SWODA and ASCOG.

Regional Transportation Planning Regional transportation planning is a collaborative process designed to foster participation by all interested parties such as business communities, community groups, elected officials, and the general public through a proactive public participation process. Emphasis by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) is placed on extending public participation to include people who have been traditionally underserved by the transportation


Page 3

system and services in the region. The purpose if the transportation system is to move people and goods in the safest and most efficient manner possible. SORTPO envisions the transportation system as a critical element of the quality of life for the citizens. A regional approach to long range transportation planning is necessary because of the rural nature and diverse characteristics of the population in Oklahoma. Transportation systems, both highway and transit, must safely, efficiently and effectively allow citizens to travel to work and to conduct their personal lives. Transportation systems must further provide for the efficient movement of goods to markets to support the county’s economic vitality. Additionally, transportation decisions should carefully consider and reflect environmental and community concerns. Transportation planning is a process that develops information to help make decisions on the future development and management of transportation systems. It involves the determination of the need for new or expanded roads, transit systems, freight facilities and bicycle/pedestrian facilities their location, their capacity and the future needs. The process of developing the LRTP provides an opportunity for participating in the planning of the future transportation system. The process allows the community to focus their attention on transportation in the context of Jackson County as well as the SORTPO region. The LRTP was developed within the regulatory framework of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). The LRTP establishes the goals, objectives and transportation strategies for addressing the region’s transportation needs. This planning process follows the three “c’s” identified by federal transportation regulations: continuing, cooperation and comprehensive.

Purpose of Plan The 2040 Jackson County LRTP is a document used by the county, cities, towns, agencies, businesses and residents as a guide to maintain and improve the region’s transportation system through 2040. The year 2040 was chosen as the planning horizon year for the LRTP for the following reasons:

• Allows the local governments and participating agencies to plan for long range solutions to anticipated needs.

• The year 2040 is far enough into the future to allow for growth of the area and projects to be implemented.

The plan is an important tool and assists communities in focusing their limited funds on projects that give them the best value and benefit for funding. The purpose of the long-range transportation plan is to direct investment of available resources toward meeting the region’s highest priority needs. The needs are determined by comparing the plan’s objectives, “What do we want to accomplish over the life of the plan?” with current conditions and forecasts, “Where are we starting, and how are demographics and economics expected to change?” The projects and policies that are included in the LRTP the plan arise


Page 4

from the needs and those needs also span the twenty-year planning period. A key concept that underlies the discussion of needs is affordability. With limited fiscal resources, every jurisdiction that owns and operates part of the countywide transportation system must consider what they can afford to operate and maintain into the future. People of all ages are making different decisions about where they choose to live, and what constitutes a positive quality of life. Appendix 5.2 illustrates survey results obtained during the planning process. Survey Question 9 includes information on the importance of selected transportation components in Jackson County. Three components received the highest rating: maintenance improvements, intersection improvements and connection to US and State Highways. When selecting projects survey respondents indicated in Question 10 a higher preference for projects that improve safety, supports economic development, reduces congestion, improve shoulders and improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities. As a means of achieving the successful implementation of the LRTP, the plan has been developed in five-year increments. The five-year increment format will offer realistic goals in Chapter 6 relative to the LRTP’s short range implementation activities. The incremental approach also provides a reasonable opportunity in scheduling state and/or federally funded transportation improvements within the county.

Relationship and Requirements with State and Federal Agencies The 2040 LRTP was developed in cooperation and in collaboration with municipal, county governments, transit providers, ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The plan is the culmination of a continuing, cooperative, coordinated and comprehensive planning effort among the federal, state and local governments directed by SORTPO that provides for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies and services that should address the planning factors identified in The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST) was signed into law in December 2015. The FAST Act added two additional factors for a total of ten (Table 1.1), which SORTPO should strive to address through their LRTP planning process. Table 1.1: Planning Factors

1. Support the economic vitality of the United States, the States,


Page 5

nonmetropolitan areas, and metropolitan areas, especially enabling global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency.

2. Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.

3. Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users.

4. Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight.

5. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic patterns.

6. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system across and between modes, people and freight.

7. Promote efficient system management and operation.

8. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

9. Improve the resiliency and reliability of the transportation system and reduce or mitigate stormwater impacts of surface transportation.

10. Enhance travel and tourism

Source: 23 USC Section 23 USC 135 (d)(1)

In addition, The FAST Act continues Map-21 requirement to State Departments of Transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations to use a performance-based approach to support seven (7) national goals for the transportation system. This requirement has not been mandated to non-metropolitan areas. Though specific performance measures are not identified in this plan, SORTPO recognizes the significance of such measures and will begin the collection of data needed to establish standards in future plans (Appendix1).

Goals and Strategies The LRTP format follows a hierarchy that includes goals, objectives and strategies to assist Jackson County in planning and prioritization of transportation system projects and studies. The Goals are founded on the principals that the transportation system must serve the needs of its community today; it must be responsive to change; and it must be affordable for all users. Goals are general statements of what we want the future to be like. The goals are used as guiding


Page 6

principles to choose among various options for transportation improvements. Therefore, they should be attainable and realistic. In addition, the goals should relate to present conditions and expected changes in those conditions. Strategies are statements that provide direction for decisions to help attain these goals and objectives. Table 1.2 identifies the goal categories for the LRTP.

Goals were developed from meetings held with stakeholders, technical committee and policy board meetings. It is important to recognize that many factors influence transportation system performance and transportation is only one component of a community. Economic development, housing, the economy and natural resources also can play a role. Implementing goals is the responsibility of local, county and state governments and SORTPO. Strategies were developed in coordination with partner agencies. The strategies developed do not fall solely under the responsibility of SORTPO. Local and community agencies should consider their roles in affecting outcomes. It will be necessary to prioritize the strategies and build the data collection and analysis, for those deemed most important, into annual programs, such as the Planning Work Program (PWP). Table 1.2: Jackson County Goal Categories

Goal Description

1. Accessibility and Mobility (pg. 7)

Improve accessibility and mobility for people and freight.

2. Awareness, Education and Cooperative Process (pg. 7)

Maintain intergovernmental cooperation and coordination, along with community participation and input in all stages of the transportation planning process.

3. Freight & Economic Vitality (pg.8)

Support and improve the economic vitality of the county and region by providing access to economic development opportunities, such as business and industrial access, natural, scenic and historic resources or recreational travel and tourism.

4. Environment (pg.8)

Reduce impacts to the county’s natural environment, historic areas and underrepresented communities resulting from transportation programs and projects.

5. Finance & Funding (pg.9)

Seek and acquire a variety of transportation funding sources to meet the many diverse system needs.

6. Maintenance & Preservation (pg. 9)

Preserve the existing transportation network and promote efficient system management in order to


Page 7

Goal Description

promote access and mobility for both people and freight.

7. Safety & Security (pg. 9-10)

Improve the safety and security of the transportation system by implementing transportation improvement that reduce fatalities and serious injuries as well as enabling effective emergency management operations.

8. Community & Health (pg.11)

Facilitate development of transportation projects and programs that support healthy lifestyles in the region.

9. Tourism & Travel (pg.11)

Improve travel opportunities through enhancement and preservation of access to tourism destinations or regionally significant facilities.

Goal 1: Accessibility and Mobility Improve accessibility and mobility for people and freight. Strategies: 1. Identify opportunities to provide transit system to improves access to health

care facilities, education facilities, and employment. 2. Develop a system to collect and monitor changes in population,

employment, and major employers by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). 3. Conduct a freight assessment for the county. 4. Review transportation improvements and expansion of services to ensure

that the facility for one (1) mode of transportation doesn’t create barriers for the access or mobility of other modes.

5. Participate with ODOT, Class I and Class III Rail Comprises and communities in activities that will upgrade rail tracks, bridges and trusses to support the standardized railcar weight of 286,000 pounds.

Goal 2: Awareness, Education and Cooperative Process Maintain intergovernmental cooperation and coordination, along with community participation and input in all stages of the transportation planning process. Strategies: 1. Participate on state, regional, and local committees regarding County

transportation issues. 2. Educate key stakeholders, businesses, local leaders and the public on the

purpose and function of SORTPO.


Page 8

3. Annually review the Public Participation Plan. 4. Develop and implement a bicycle and pedestrian public awareness and

education program. 5. Develop a clearinghouse for regional data sets, such as pavement

management systems and geographic information systems to help inform sound planning decisions.

6. Facilitate and support the coordination of regional training opportunities. 7. Develop method to track the implementation of projects and regularly

update the public on the status of projects, programs and finances. 8. Facilitate and support the coordination of regional training opportunities.

Goal 3: Freight & Economic Vitality Support and improve the economic vitality of the county and region by providing access to economic development opportunities, such as business and industrial access, natural, scenic and historic resources or recreational travel and tourism. Strategies: 1. Prioritize transportation projects that serve major employment and activity

centers, rail lines and freight corridors. 2. Identify the locations of major employment centers, including existing and

proposed developments and identify types of transportation available. 3. Coordinate with local and tribal governments on the placement of regionally

significant developments. 4. Maintain local and state support for the general aviation airports. 5. Continue to coordinate transportation planning with adjoining counties,

regions and councils of government for transportation needs and improvements beyond those in our region.

6. Working with area employers and stakeholders develop a database and map identifying transportation needs.

7. Identify and designate routes and connectors with heavy freight movements as freight priority corridors.

8. Identify and inventory suitable locations for multi‐modal facilities.

Goal 4: Environment Reduce impacts to the county’s natural environment, historic areas and underrepresented communities resulting from transportation programs and projects. Strategies: 1. Consult with local, state and national agencies in the areas of environmental

protection and historic preservation, in terms of transportation programs and projects.


Page 9

2. Promote proper environmental stewardship and mitigation practices to restore and maintain environmental resources that may be impacted by transportation projects.

3. Promote the use of alternative fuels and technologies in motor vehicles, fleet and transit vehicles.

4. Develop database and mapping to identify the County’s underrepresented communities.

5. Support designs of the transportation system that will protect cultural, historic, and scenic resources, community cohesiveness, and quality of life.

6. Develop a data file and create a map identifying location of wind farms and pipelines and relationship to communities and the transportation system.

Goal 5: Finance and Funding Seek and acquire a variety of transportation funding sources to meet the many diverse system needs. Strategies: 1. Maximize local leverage of state and federal transportation funding

opportunities. 2. Increase private sector participation in funding transportation

infrastructure and services. 3. Encourage multi-year capital improvement planning by local, county, tribal,

and state officials that includes public participation, private sector involvement, coordination among jurisdictions and modes and fiscal constraint.

4. Assist jurisdictions in finding and applying for funds available for multi‐modal improvements.

Goal 6: Maintenance and Preservation Preserve the existing transportation network and promote system management to promote access and mobility for both people and freight. Strategies: 1. Identify sources of transportation data and develop a procedure to collect

the data and present to the public. 2. Identify and collect transportation performance data and compare to

previous years’ data. Goal 7: Safety and Security Improve the safety and security of the transportation system by implementing transportation improvement that reduce fatalities and serious injuries as well as enabling effective emergency management operations.


Page 10

Strategies: 1. Coordinate with local governments and other agencies to identify safety

concerns and conditions, and recommend projects to address key deficiencies.

2. Coordinate county and regional actions with the Statewide Highway Safety Plan.

3. Collect and routinely analyze safety and security data by mode and severity to identify changes and trends.

4. Develop a data file and create a map identifying location of wind farms and pipelines and relationship to communities and the transportation system.

5. Assist in the designation of corridors and development of procedures to provide for safe movement of hazardous materials.

6. Adopt best practices to provide and improve facilities for safe walking and bicycling.

7. Incorporate emergency service agencies in the transportation planning and implementation processes to ensure delivery of transportation security to the traveling public.

8. Support the Oklahoma Department of Transportation in its plans to add and improve roadway shoulders on two lane highways.

9. Reduce the number of at grade rail highway crossings. 10. Upgrade passively protected at grade rail highway crossings. Goal 8: Community & Health Facilitate development of transportation projects and programs that support healthy lifestyles in the region. Strategies: 1. Integrate healthy community design strategies and promote active

transportation to improve the public health outcomes. 2. Support development of transportation systems that provide opportunities

for populations walking, bicycling and utilizing non-motorized modes. 3. Identify funding opportunities and partners to increase low cost

transportation opportunities. 4. Establish partnerships with local groups and agencies to provide

transportation services. Goal 9: Tourism & Travel Improve travel opportunities through enhancement and preservation of access to tourism destinations or regionally significant facilities. Strategies 1. Develop a regional map that identifies tourism destinations and regionally

significant facilities. 2. Establish procedures to increase coordination and communication with local

governments, tribal governments and state agencies to identify projects that impact the communities’ transportation system.


Page 11

3. Collaborate with local economic development authorities, State and Federal economic development agencies in the identification

Key Issues, Challenges and Trends Rural communities have problematic transportation areas even if they do not experience congestion. Understanding the true nature of the problem at these locations and developing a plan to address them is an important part of rural planning. Unanticipated changes may happen that can have impacts on a city, town, county or region. There are many issues facing the area that have a direct or indirect impact on the transportation system. This section is intended to identify these issues, challenges and trends. At the onset of the transportation planning process with input by the public through surveys and stakeholder meetings, the SORTPO staff, policy board and technical committee members identified key issues, challenges and trends that impact the transportation system. Appendix 5.2 displays the results of the surveys. Key Issues: • Maintain access to healthcare and emergency services. • Increase transit services. • Forced school consolidation due to state of State’s flat revenues and multiple

year budget cuts. • Lack of shoulders on 2 lane highways. • Urban versus rural mindset. • Improvements of rail crossings. • Problematic traffic issue locations (areas with high accidents, intersections,

truck generators).

Challenges: • Age of infrastructure. • Attracting workforce to support the employment needs. • Access to affordable to high speed internet. • Lack of funding to adequately maintain roadway systems and bridges. • Competition for industry/business. • Working together regionally to attract/maintain workforce, industry and

community. • Funding limitation - revenues continue to be limited to meet the

transportation system needs over time. • Expand community and regional services that support the mission of Altus

Air Force Base. • Maintain access to health and related services. • Lack of system to reevaluate how, when and where new roads are built

versus investment in upgrade to the existing road system.

Trends: • Population declines in rural areas.


Page 12

• Freight traffic will grow. • Population and employment growth in the county dependent on Air Force

Base. • The population is aging. • Motor vehicles will continue to be the primary means of transportation. • The energy sector and farming community will continue to rely heavily on

trucks in rural areas. • Technology impact on retail, employment and how medical services are

obtained. • Autonomous vehicle technology. State of Oklahoma’s budget negative impact

on rural communities.


Page 13

Chapter 2: Current Conditions

This chapter provides a “snapshot” of current conditions that relate to transportation in Jackson County. Demographics, economic conditions, environmental factors, community development and transportation and traffic data each provides information for transportation planning. Jackson County is in southwestern Oklahoma (Map 2.1). The County is bordered by Greer County on the north, Harmon County on the west, Kiowa and Tillman counties to the east, Texas and the Red River to the south. Most of the County lies within the Red Bed Plains physiographic region. The western third of the county is situated in the Gypsum Hills region and the northeastern corner is in the Wichita Mountains region. The County is predominately rural, with much of the population being within the incorporated city of Altus, and the towns of Blair and Olustee.

History Jackson County encompasses 804 square miles of land and water. This County was formed in 1907 from part of Old Greer County and Altus was designated at the County Seat. The County’s economy is primarily based on agriculture and Altus Air Force Base (AAFB). Altus became home to US Air Force (USAF) aircraft and personnel in 1943. The Base was originally called Altus Army Air Field (AAF). Over the next five decades the base evolved to become the premier air mobility training location in the US Air Force, and employs five thousand (5,000) people. The AAFB is home to the KC-46 training facility and when fully staffed will add 700-800 trainees annually and 300 permanent members.

Within the County are six highways: US Highway 283 crosses the County in a north-south direction and passes through Altus and Blair, US Highway 62 crosses the county from east to west going through Altus and Duke and near Headrick and State Highways 5, 6, 19 and 34 also serve motorists. Jackson County also has municipal airports that are in Altus and Olustee. The County is also served by five railroad companies: Farmrail Corporation (FMRC), Grainbelt Corporation (GNBC), Stillwater Central Railway (SLWC), Wichita, Tillman & Jackson (WT&J) and Burlington Northern and Sante Fe (BNSF).


Page 14

Map 2.1 Jackson County Transportation System

Source: SWODA


Page 15

The County is home to nine (9) cities and towns with Altus containing the largest population. ➢ Altus is located at the intersection of US Highway (US) 62 and US 283. Altus

is the largest community in Jackson County and is the primary retail center. In the 2010 US Census estimated that Altus population was 19,813. In the 2010-2014 ACS estimated population at 19,716. The Altus Central Business District is located along US 62 and US 283. Altus economy is surrounded by Altus Air Force Base, retail shops and farming and ranching. The W.C. Baker House, Frazer Cemetery, Elmer and Lela Garnett House, Jackson County Courthouse and Wichita Falls & Northwestern Railroad Passenger Depot were listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Altus is also known for Lake Altus-Lugert and Quartz Mountain State Park, located seventeen miles north of Altus in Greer and Kiowa County.

➢ Blair is located ten miles north of Altus at the intersection of US 283 and State Highways (SH) 6 and 19. Blair is in northern Jackson County. The estimated population for Blair was 606 in the 2010-2014 ACS. Blair economy is surrounded by farming and ranching.

➢ Duke is located on US 62 and SH 34. Duke lies fourteen miles west of Altus in western Jackson County. The estimated population was 332 in the 2010- 2014 ACS. Duke’s economy is surrounded by farmland and ranching. The Perryman Ranch Headquarters was added to the National Register of Historic Places.

➢ Eldorado is located on SH 6, seven miles north of the Red River. The estimated population was 466 in the 2010-2014 ACS. Eldorado’s economy is surrounded by farming and ranching. The farmers formed the Eldorado Farmer’s Cooperative Association in the early 1900’s.

➢ Elmer is in southern Jackson County. Elmer is on US 283, fourteen miles south of Altus. The population was estimated at 111 in the 2010-2014 ACS. The town is surrounded by farming and ranching.

➢ Headrick is lies eleven miles east of Altus and one-half mile south of US 62. The population was estimated at 147 in the 2010-2014 ACS. The town is surrounded by farming and ranching.

➢ Martha is located six miles northwest of Altus and three miles west of US 283 on East County Road 158. The population was estimated at in the 2010-2014 ACS. The town is surrounded by farming and ranching.

➢ Olustee is located on SH 6, Olustee lies fourteen miles southwest of Altus in Jackson County. The population was estimated at 450 in the 2010-2014 ACS. The town is surrounded by farming and ranching. The Cross-Ranch Headquarters, Fullerton Dam, Olustee Public Library and Park were registered in the Historic Places.

As the population fluctuates, either through economic changes, in or out migration or shifting within the region the needs of the communities including education, health care, social services, employment, and transportation remain relatively stable. Land use and development changes that particularly affect


Page 16

transportation in rural areas include, but are not limited to, loss or gain of a major employer, movement of younger sectors of the population to more urban areas, tribal land development and investment. The Jackson County’s population shows a slight decline between the 2000 and 2010 US Census as indicated in Table 2.1. The decline is attributed to out migration, death and a slowdown in new industry or businesses locating in the County. The County’s population is distributed between male (49.5%) and female (50.5%) with the median age of 34 years of age. The largest concentration of population lies between the ages of 25-54 (38.5%); while the 28.7% of the population was 19 years and under. The population age 65 years old and over represent 13.2% of the County’s population. Table 2.1: Jackson County Population 1980-2014 Estimate

1980 1990 2000 2010

2010-2014 ACS

ESTIMATED POPULATION

Altus 23,101 21,910 21,447 19,813 19,549

Blair 1,092 922 894 818 665

East Duke 484 360 445 424 349

Eldorado 688 573 527 446 449

Elmer 131 132 96 96 113

Headrick 223 183 130 94 126 Martha 219 217 205 162 141

Olustee 721 701 680 607 537

Balance of Jackson County

3,697 3,766 4,105 3,962 4,127

Jackson County TOTAL

30,356 28,764 28,439 26,446 26,056

Source: US Census American Fact Finder, 2011-2015 ACS

Information obtained from the 2010-2014 ACS provides facts on the makeup of the county. Below is information obtained from the ACS. Additional demographic data can be found in Appendices 2.1 – 2.7.

✓ Occupied Housing Units – 10,407 ✓ Owner Occupied Units –6,165 ✓ Renter Occupied Units -4,242 ✓ Single Family Detached Housing Units - 82.0% ✓ Mobile Home or Other type of Home - 4.8% ✓ Educational Attainment population 25 years and Older

• High School Graduate – 36.2% • Some College – 45.9% • Bachelor’s Degree –4.0%

✓ Commute Patterns to Work Age 16 years and Older


Page 17

• Car, truck or van –1,332 • Public Transportation –22 • Walked –344 • Other Means -173 • Worked at Home –259

✓ Industry • Agriculture and forestry – 442 • Construction –637 • Retail Trade – 1,254 • Educational Services – 1,091 • Public Administration – 1,546

Civilian Labor Force data between the years 1990-2015 is illustrated in Figure 2.1. The information portrayed in this graph developed by the Federal Reserve Bank illustrates the fluctuation in the Jackson County Civilian Labor Force. Figure 2.2 illustrates the Civilian Labor Force not adjusted seasonally. Comparing the data in Figure 2.1 and 2.2 there are similarities in the employment growth between 1990-2015. Figure 2.3 illustrates 2010-2014 Jackson County Business Patterns. This figure displays the stability in the business categories. Figure 2.1: Jackson County, Civilian Labor Force 1990 – 2015

Source: US. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Release: Unemployment in States and Local Areas (all other areas) Growth Rate Calculations | US recession dates


Page 18

11336

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

1990-01-01 1994-01-01 1998-01-01 2002-01-01 2006-01-01 2010-01-01 2014-01-01

Civ

ilian

Lab

or

Forc

e

Month-Year

Civilian Labor Force, Annual not seasonally adjusted

Figure 2.2: Jackson County, Civilian Labor Force, Annual not seasonally adjusted, 1990 – 2014

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

Figure 2.3: Jackson County, 2000 & 2014 Jackson County Business Pattern

Source: US Census Statistics

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Tota

l fo

r al

l se

cto

rsA

gric

ult

ure

, fo

rest

ry,…

Min

ing,

qu

arry

ing,

an

d o

il…U

tilit

ies

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Man

ufa

ctu

rin

gW

ho

lesa

le t

rad

eR

etai

l tra

de

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

an

d…

Info

rmat

ion

Fin

ance

an

d in

sura

nce

Rea

l est

ate

and

ren

tal a

nd

…P

rofe

ssio

nal

, sci

enti

fic,

…M

anag

emen

t o

f…A

dm

inis

trat

ive

an

d…

Edu

cati

on

al s

ervi

ces

Hea

lth

car

e a

nd

so

cial

…A

rts,

en

tert

ain

men

t, a

nd

…A

cco

mm

od

atio

n a

nd

fo

od

…O

the

r se

rvic

es

(exc

ep

t…In

du

stri

es n

ot

clas

sifi

edN

um

ber

of

Esta

blis

hm

ents

Industry Category

Jackson County Business Pattern, 2010 & 2014

2010 Number of establishments

2014 Number of establishments


Page 19

Figure 2.4 provides information related to vehicle registration data obtained from the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC). Automobile and farm truck registration are the primary classes of vehicles in the County. The data in the graph confirms that the primary vehicle is the automobile. The 2010-2014 ACS Population estimate of 26,046 when compared to vehicle registration supports the continuing trend of multiple vehicle ownership. Data obtained from the 2010-2014 ACS reveals that 21.1% of the population had access to three or more vehicles available; while 5.5% of the population did not have access to a vehicle. Commute patterns to work for Workers 16 years and older according to the 2010-2014 ACS identify that 82.1% workers drove alone, 11.2% carpooled, and 2.2% worked at home. Mean travel time was estimated at 14.4 minutes. Figure 2.4: Jackson County Vehicle Registration, 2011-2015

Source: Oklahoma Tax Commission

Traffic Analysis Zones The Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Program is a specialized computer program used for delineating zones in support of the Census Transportation Planning Products (CTPP). TAZ delineation follows the decennial census and is designed to allow planning agencies the ability to define areas to associate demographic data that supports transportation system analysis. Boundaries of a TAZ typically follow US Census boundaries and are an aggregation of several census blocks. Data for the plan was obtained by the 2010 US Census Bureau, CTPP and Oklahoma

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000

Motorcycle

Auto

Farm Truck

Comm'l Truck/Tractor

Comm'l Truck

Comm'l Trailer

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011


Page 20

Department of Commerce. The year 2015 is the base year for the plan and 2011-2015 ACS was used as the base population. TAZ delineation for the areas other than Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) are the responsibility of ODOT. Historically in non-MPO areas the TAZ boundary defaulted to the census tract boundary. The RTPO’s are responsible for developing these zones and supporting data. As rural transportation planning continues to mature the delineation of TAZ will allow acquisition of data that supports the transportation planning process. SORTPO staff developed TAZ boundaries based on county population as identified below:

➢ Small populated counties (population < 6,000) o population thresholds of 200 to 400 and employment thresholds of

200-300 ➢ Medium populated counties (population 6,001 – 34,999) o population thresholds of 400 to 600 and employment thresholds of

300-400 ➢ Large populated counties (population > 35,000) o population thresholds of 600 to 800 and employment thresholds of 400

Geographically, the County and cities/towns are subdivided into seventy (70) traffic analysis zones. Socio-economic data (including population and employment) are summarized for each TAZ. Map 2.2 illustrates the revised TAZ boundaries for the County. Maps 2.3 through 2.10 illustrate TAZ areas for Altus, Blair, Duke, Eldorado, Elmer, Headrick, Martha and Olustee. The 2010 population of 26,446 and employment of 11,465 was distributed into the TAZs. Appendix 2.8 provides information on the population and employment data by TAZ. TAZ 162 (Altus Air Force Base) contains the largest concentration of population and employment. TAZs with the greatest population include: 3, 4, 5, 9, 101, 216, 218, 225, 251 and TAZs with the highest employment concentration include: 216, 236, 237, 238, 239. The rural nature of the County requires the Plan development to consider that a major employer is determined by the individual community. In some instances, a major employer may be identified as an employer with as few as 10-15 employees. Major employers by city/town and County by TAZ are included in Appendix 2.9.

Physical Development Constraints and Conditions There are transportation facilities, land ownership, existing development and environmental features that affect the growth of Jackson County. These constraints both physical and manmade have shaped and impacted the development of the county. Current growth is concentrated in the city of Altus and area surrounding this City. Development regulations guide growth in the cities of Altus and Blair. The most significant commercial growth areas continue to occur along US 62, Tamarack Road and US 283.


Page 21

Jackson County major constraints for development include: cities and towns, railroad, highways, Altus Air Force Base and large acreage farms. Rail lines in Jackson County include:

➢ Farmrail Corporation which separates the county from north to south traveling from Elmer through Altus to Blair and continuing north to Clinton.

➢ Wichita, Tillman & Jackson (WT&J) Railway begins in Altus and travels south east through Tillman County connecting with Frederick and extending south into Texas connection with the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BSNF) in Wichita Falls, Texas.

➢ The Stillwater Central (SLWC) enters the County from the east and runs parallel to US 62 extending to Altus.

➢ The BNSF begins at Snyder and runs parallel to US 62 and shares the rail space with SLWC to Altus. BNSF at Altus travels southwest through Olustee Eldorado and enters Texas connecting to BSNF line that extends to Amarillo, TX and the Dallas Fort Worth metroplex.


Page 22

Map 2.2: Jackson County Traffic Analysis Zones


Page 23

Map 2.3: Altus Area Traffic Analysis Zones


Page 24

Map 2.4: Blair Area Traffic Analysis Zones

Source: SWODA

Two highways (US 283 and US 62) provide access from the north and south and east and west. Altus Air Force Base is in the northeast quadrant of the City of Altus. Map 2.1 located on page 13 illustrates the location of the highways, rail lines and airports. There are no federally recognized tribal lands in Jackson County, Appendix 2.10 illustrates the Tribal Land in the state. Jackson County is home to environmental features natural and cultural resources which can influence the transportation system. There are many different types of environmentally sensitive areas and potential impacts to the natural and human environment that may be affected by various actions associated with the 2040 LRTP. These include (but are not necessarily limited to):

• Threatened and Endangered Species • Wetlands • Floodplains • Surface and Ground Waters • Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control • Hazardous Materials


Page 25

• Air Quality • Historical/Cultural Resources • Right-of-Way/Property Impacts, Including Impacts to Parks, Farmland and

Neighborhoods • Scenic View sheds • Traffic and Train Noise

State and federal environmental regulations, require that environmental considerations be addressed in transportation decision making, plans and programs. Most transportation capital and maintenance projects have the potential to affect natural and human-made resources in both positive and negative ways. To minimize impact on County environmental features. Appendix 2.11 and Appendix 2.12 provides description of significant environmental features to be considered in development of residential, commercial/industrial or transportation projects.

Public Safety Issues The vulnerability of a region’s transportation system and its use in emergency evacuations are issues receiving new attention with the threat of intentional damage or destruction caused by terrorist events and natural disasters. Therefore, security goes beyond safety and includes the planning to prevent, manage or respond to threats toward a region and its transportation system and users. There are many programs to help manage security concerns and emergency issues. SORTPO and its member jurisdiction transportation and emergency service staff are regular participants in security planning and preparation activities including development of the Jackson County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Ongoing participation in these planning activities helps prepare for and to better manage transportation safety and security situations.

MAP-21 required all states to prepare and annually evaluate their Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). A SHSP is a statewide, coordinated safety plan which includes goals, objectives and emphasis areas for reducing highway fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. More information on the Oklahoma SHSP can be found on the ODOT website (http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/oshsp/index.htm).

The safety of the traveling public, regardless of vehicle type or highway system classification, is of principal concern for ODOT and SORTPO. Safety strategies are developed based on an analysis of key contributing factors such as crash data, highway inventories, traffic volumes, and highway configurations such as geometric challenges. When undesirable patterns become evident, specific countermeasures are identified based on a more in depth and detailed analysis of crash locations and causes.

Collisions To help identify safety issues, traffic safety data must be

http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/oshsp/index.htm


Page 26

analyzed. Trend analysis based upon multiple-years’ worth of data provides a more accurate indication of the safety condition in the county. A review of collision records collected and maintained by ODOT was performed for the calendar years 2012-2016. A total of 1,954 collisions were reported in Jackson County during this period. The highest concentration of collisions occurred at the intersection of Main St/US 62 and Tamarack Rd. Table 2.2 identifies the number of collisions (in highest concentration), location and accident severity index for the years 2012-2016. The intersection of Main St. (US-283) and Tamarack Rd. is ranked number one in the number and severity of collisions during this time period. Between 2012-2016 there were fifteen (15) fatalities and 774 injuries. Type of collisions included rear-ends (24.6%), with right angles (16.3%), fixed object (14.3%), other (13.5%), and angle (12.4%). Vehicle collisions occurred predominately in 4 door passenger vehicles and pickup trucks. Figure 2.5 illustrates collisions by vehicle type. Driver condition for cause of collisions includes no improper action (42.6%), inattention (13.4%), failed to stop (10.1%), and unsafe speed (6.6%). Appendices (2.13-2.17) provide supplemental information on collision data. Table 2.2: Jackson County Collision Concentration, 2012- 2016

CITY CITY STREET NAME/HWY

CITY STREET NAME/HWY

SEV

INDEX

NUM

COLLS

RANK

Altus Main St./US 283 Tamarack Rd. 71 53 1

Altus Broadway Ave./US 62 Navajo St. 49 31 2

Altus Main St./US 283 Bradford Ave. 43 37 3

Altus Main St./US 283 Falcon Rd. 42 32 4

Altus Broadway Ave./US 62 Main St./US 283 38 29 5

Altus Main St./US 283 Sequoyah Ln. 37 28 6

Altus Broadway Ave./US 62 Park Ln. 34 23 7

Altus Main St./US 283 Cypress Ave. 29 18 8

Altus Main St./US 283 A St. 28 19 9

Altus Veterans Blvd. Falcon Rd. 24 18 10

Altus Main St./US 283 Commerce Ave. 23 14 11

Altus Main St./US 283 Simpson 22 16 12

Altus Park Ln. Tamarack Rd. 20 11 13

Altus Park Ln. Falcon Rd. 17 14 14


Page 27

CITY CITY STREET NAME/HWY

CITY STREET NAME/HWY

SEV

INDEX

NUM

COLLS

RANK

Altus Main St./US 283 Sutherland Ave. 16 12 15

Altus Main St./US 283 Walmart/Braum’s Entrance

16 12 16

Altus Broadway Ave./US 62 Park Ave. 16 11 17

Altus Broadway Ave./US62 Veterans Blvd. 14 10 18

Altus Main St./US 283 Val Verde St. 13 10 19

Altus Spurgeon St. Falcon Rd. 13 5 20

Source: ODOT Traffic Engineering Div. Collision Analysis and Safety Branch

Figure 2.5: Jackson County, Collision by Vehicle Type 2012-2016


Areas of Concern Areas of concern were identified through surveys, holding public meetings and soliciting comments from stakeholders. Through the collective knowledge and experience of the members of the Transportation Technical Committee and Policy Board and the information obtained via public comment the data areas of concern were identified. These locations are shown in Table 2.3. The scope of the LRTP does not include solutions to the areas of concern.

Passenger Vehicle-4 Door41%

Pickup Truck30%

Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV)

16%

Passenger Vehicle-2 Door8%

Other3%

Passenger Van2%

Jackson County Collisons by Vehicle Type 2012-2016


Page 28

Table 2.3: Jackson County Transportation Areas of Concern CITY/TOWN LOCATION DESCRIPTION

Altus S. County Road 210 Narrow road needs widen /no shoulders a lot of traffic. Going toward Navajo.

Altus Tamarack Rd. /Falcon Rd.

Reduce Speed

Altus Tamarack Rd. Turning lanes and Light Altus Falcon Rd.

Broadway/Tamarack Rd.

Need sidewalks and bike lanes

Altus Tamarack Rd./ Park Ln.

Needs light at intersection

Altus Falcon Rd. There is a lot of traffic needs to be a 4-lane street and add sidewalks. Due to school traffic coming and going.

Altus Jackson St. Have dips in the roads where cars frequently bottom out.

Altus Downtown / Parks Sidewalks do not connect. No bicycle lanes.

Altus US 283/ Tamarack Rd. Intersection needs turning radius for trucks.

Altus US 62 Needs sidewalks.

Altus County Road E1620 Needs shoulders parents park on side of road to pick up kids off school bus that go to Navajo School

Altus Veterans St. Need to do a traffic study. Need sidewalks.

Altus Scoggins Rd Needs repaired sharp drop offs

Blair US 283/ SH 19 Need a stop light to slow traffic down. Jackson Co US H283 South of Altus terrible roads heavy

freight moves on this road. Jackson Co US 283 Accidents at the intersection going

toward Quartz Mt. Park Jackson Co US 62, US 283, SH-5,

SH-6, SH-19, SH-34 Need road repairs.

Source: Stakeholder Meetings, Surveys, SORTPO

Existing Roadway Network The state-owned highway system in Oklahoma is comprised of the State numbered route highways, the US numbered route highways and the Interstate Highway


Page 29

System. The state system of highways encompasses 12,257 centerline miles as measured in one direction along the dividing stripe of two lane facilities and in one direction along the general median of multilane facilities. Transportation on our highways is also facilitated by over 6,800 bridge structures that span major rivers and lakes, named and unnamed perennial streams and creeks, other roads and highways and railroads. Oklahoma’s rural nature and historically agricultural and energy based economy has witnessed the conversion of many farm-to-market roads and bridges into highways. While these roads were ideal for transporting livestock and crops to market 70 years ago, they are less than adequate when supporting today’s heavier trucks, increased traffic demands and higher operating speeds. Almost 4,600 miles of Oklahoma highways are two-lane facilities without paved shoulders Appendix 2.18 illustrates the Steep Hill/Sharp Curves areas of concern (statewide). Appendix 2.19 illustrates the location of two lane highways with no shoulders. Preserving the transportation system has emerged as a national, state and local transportation priority. Aging infrastructure continues to deteriorate, reducing the quality of the system and increasing maintenance costs. All roads deteriorate over time due to environmental conditions and the volume and type of traffic using the roadway. Without proper maintenance, roadways wear out prematurely. ODOT’s annual evaluation of pavement conditions and safety features such as passing opportunities, adequate sight distances, existence of paved shoulders, recovery areas for errant vehicles, and the severity of hills and curves in 2016 reveals about 30% or approximately 3,687 of the State’s 12,257 miles of highway rate as poor which includes 3,211 miles of two-lane highway. Traffic Count Traffic counts are collected by ODOT (Appendix 2.20) and data included in this plan reveal that the largest volume of traffic is carried US 283 from the Jackson County Line north through Cheyenne to SH 47.

Functional Classification and Road System Functional classification is a well-established system utilized by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for grouping streets and highways into classes based on roadway characteristics and intended services. Basic to this process is the recognition that individual roads and streets cannot serve travel independently; rather, most travel involves movement through a network of roads. Thus, it is necessary to determine how to channelize travel within the network in a logical and efficient manner. Functional classification (Appendix 2.21) defines the extent to


Page 30

which roadways provide for through travel versus the extent to which they provide access to land parcels. An interstate highway provides service exclusively for through travel, while a local street is used exclusively for land access. Each roadway has a classification number based on its location, access, and capacity characteristics. Functional class and jurisdiction are important not only in relation to operational and maintenance responsibility, but also in how roadway improvement projects can be funded. It is important to note that Rural Local and urban local streets which are not eligible for federal funds. Jackson County functionally classified roads are illustrated on the Functional Classification Map in Appendix 2.22. Funding eligibility limitations include:

• FHWA National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) can be used only on the National Highway System, which comprises the Interstates, all other Principal Arterials, and all designated NHS Connectors.

• FHWA Surface Transportation Program (STP) can be used on any facility except Local Roads and Rural Minor Collectors.

• FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program can be used to address safety problems on any public road.

Bridges Federal law requires that all bridges be inspected biennially; those that have specific structural problems may require more frequent inspections. Inspections include evaluation and rating of numerous elements of the substructure, superstructure, and deck, with special attention paid to fracture-critical members. Underwater inspections occur no less than every 5 years to check for scour around bridge piers. Bridges are composed of three basic parts: deck, superstructure and substructure. If any of these components receives a condition index value of 4 or less in the National Bridge Index, it is considered structurally deficient. Bridges are rated on a numerical scale of “1” to “7” that translates into a range of Poor, Fair, Good, and Excellent. Bridges are also described as “Structurally Deficient” and “Functionally Obsolete” (Appendix 2.23). The former may have any of many structural problems noted in the inspection; while some may be closed or load-posted, many remain safe for traffic. The latter are bridges that do not meet current design standards. They may have narrow lanes, or inadequate clearances, but they may also be structurally sound. These structures enable vehicles, bicycles, pedestrian and wildlife to cross an obstacle. Bridges are structures that span more than 20 feet between supports and deteriorate over time due to weather and normal wear-and-tear with the passage of vehicles. To ensure safety and minimize disruption to the transportation network bridges undergo regular inspections by qualified engineers. Inspections help locate and identify potential problems early


Page 31

and trigger protection mechanisms when a problem is found. Jackson County is home to 243 bridges that are critical for regional mobility. The bridges in the County vary greatly in their age with the oldest constructed in 1930 and most recent construction occurred in 2016. Between 2010-2016 eleven bridges were constructed (63 On System and 324 Off System). County bridges (off-system) with a sufficiency rating of 60 to 75 total 18 and bridges with a sufficiency rating of 59 or less total 86. Appendix 2.24 and Appendices 2.25 includes On and Off system bridges in Jackson County.

Traffic Control Traffic signals are a key element of traffic control. Their location and timing affects the mobility of vehicles and pedestrians. National studies demonstrate that poorly timed traffic signals are responsible for a significant proportion of urban traffic congestion. Signal timing that does not allow sufficient time for pedestrians to cross a street can contribute to safety problems and act as a barrier to walking. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) establishes minimum warrants that are to be met for installation of a signal, and for designation of exclusive turn lanes and movements. Signal ownership is an important element, as each jurisdiction may have its own protocols for maintaining and retiming signals. There is currently no inventory of traffic control devices in Jackson County which if developed can assist in prioritization of maintenance and scheduling upgrade.

Freight System The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) repealed both the Primary Freight Network and National Freight Network and directed the FHWA Administrator to establish a National Highway Freight Network (NHFN) (Appendix 2.26.) The FAST Act included the Interstate System—including Interstate facilities not located on the Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS) in the NHFN. All Interstate System roadways may not yet be reflected on the national and state NHFN maps (Map 2.11). The SORTPO Policy Board identified corridors listed in Table 2.4 and illustrated in Map 2.12 as significant statewide and regional highway freight corridors. Figure 2.6 illustrates the long-haul truck volume in 2011. Map 2.13 illustrates the Oklahoma 2014 High Volume Truck Corridors.


Page 32

Map 2.11: National Highway Freight Network, Oklahoma

Source: US DOT


Page 33

Table 2.4: Jackson County Significant Freight Corridors CITY/TOWN LOCATION/DESCRIPTION

Jackson County State Highway 5




Jackson County US Highway 283

Jackson County US Highway 62

Source: SORTPO


Page 34

Map 2.12: SORTPO Significant Freight Corridors

Source: SWODA


Page 35

Figure 2.6: Average Daily Long-Haul Traffic on NHS 2011

Source: Freight Analysis Framework (FAF)


Page 36

Map 2.13: High Volume Truck Corridors 2014 Analysis

Source: ODOT


Page 37

To assist with the inspection and enforcement of truck permits Ports of Entry (POE) facilities were constructed by ODOT. This system of POE monitors freight ingress at the state line and allows better enforcement of vehicle and freight laws. The POE (Map 2.14) are state-of-the-art facilities established as the mechanism to create a more controlled freight transportation environment on the highway system. Map 2.14: Ports of Entry

Rail ODOT Rail Programs Division oversees and monitors five different railroad companies operating through leases on approximately 212 miles of State owned track and serves as a liaison between ODOT and rail companies for ODOT projects which involve railroads or railroad property. In August 2014, ODOT and the Stillwater Central Railroad completed a $75 million sale of the Sooner Sub rail line between Midwest City and Sapulpa. With the sale of this 97.5 mile, ODOT announced a $100 million initiative to improve safety at the State’s railroad crossings. Most of the money for this program comes from the $75 million sale of the


Page 38

Sooner Sub. Improvements are to be made to more than 300 rail crossings statewide and will add flashing lights and crossing arms to many of these crossings. Federal funding, as well as funds provided by railroad companies will also be used in completing the three to four-year program. The state-owned tracks are leased by privately operated railroads. Statewide there are three (3) Class I railroads and nineteen (19) Class III railroads. Class I railroad lines include Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), and Kansas City Southern Railway Co. (KCS). ODOT is in the preliminary stage of developing the 2017 Rail Plan. Jackson County is served by five different railroad companies: SLWC, BNSF, WT&J, UP and KCS. Connections are made with Class I trunk lines BNSF at Altus, Oklahoma, or with UP at Wichita Falls, Texas. Local feeder service is provided in Jackson County by FMRC and GNBC (both subsidiaries of holding company Farmrail System), SLWC and WT&J. None operates on state-owned rail properties. Most rail activity takes place at Altus, the junction with BNSF for all short lines, making it perhaps the most over-served city in America. Rail traffic is generally light, justifying only a twice-weekly BNSF local train. BNSF also runs 100-car unit trains as needed from the Great Plains Commodities (“GPC”) shuttle loader east of Altus and the Martin-Marietta (“MM”) granite quarry situated farther east on its line in Kiowa County. BNSF’s carload count is proprietary. FMRC-GNBC bases two crews at Altus to handle the principal commodities produced in the immediate region. Winter wheat is transported from country elevators to GPC and cottonseed interchanged to BNSF and WTJR at Altus, where there is also a livestock feed distributor. A limited amount of traffic is interchanged between BNSF and GNBC at Altus for GNBC-FMRC stations beyond the subject counties. SLWC operates to the quarry from the east and serves the Eagle Materials wallboard plant at Duke about weekly, while WTJR runs essentially as needed to Altus and Frederick. The Jackson County portion of FMRC’s 66-mile line between Clinton and Altus has century-old 70-pound jointed rail and is operated at Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Class 1 (10 miles per hour). The most active portion, between Lone Wolf and Altus, is rated at 268,000 pounds gross weight and scheduled to receive 5,000 replacement ties this year. It has 17 small timber bridges. All traffic is local and handled in FMRC-provided equipment, so there is no practical need for upgrading to the contemporary commercial level of 286,000 pounds, which would necessitate extensive rail replacement. FMRC’s 10 miles of line south of Altus has no customer and is used solely for railcar storage and positioning. GNBC has track age rights over BNSF between Snyder and Altus affording access to the GPC grain facility for captive traffic only. Also in Jackson County, GNBC


Page 39

has unused delivery rights west of Altus to the grain shuttle-loader at Eldorado and interchange with BNSF at Quanah, Texas. That entire BNSF branch is operationally rated at FRA Class 2 (25 miles per hour). Physically, the lightly traveled portion of GNBC’s 19-mile Snyder-Frederick line in Tillman County has been maintained to FRA Class 2 standards. Laid with 90-pound jointed rail and including seven small bridges, it would require substantial investment to justify an increase in allowable gross weight from 268,000 to 286,000. All 2016 traffic attributable to rail customers within Jackson County originated or terminated at Altus on FMRC (709 carloads, of which 546 were interchanged there with BNSF and 163 with WTJR) or was delivered to GPC by GNBC for later forwarding by BNSF (36 carloads). An additional 234 carloads from GNBC stations outside the counties were delivered to GPC for forwarding by BNSF and 1,208 interchanged in both directions between GNBC and BNSF at Altus. Several miles of empties also were exchanged to and from temporary storage on FMRC. Except for new customer Producers Cotton Oil at Altus, which is contemplating expansion of its current facility because of increased cotton acreage in the immediate region, industrial development prospects are limited. Country elevators at Sentinel (Washita County), Cambridge and Lone Wolf (Kiowa County) remain active, but those at Dill City (Washita County), Blair (Jackson County), Lugert (Kiowa County) and Manitou (Tillman County) are dormant (though they do have side tracks that could be utilized for purposes other than car storage). FMRC-GNBC remains alert for new prospects that could serve to increase the length and frequency of trains to more remunerative levels.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been primarily a local issue, usually within communities. Most communities have at least a partial system of sidewalks to aid pedestrians, particularly near schools. Pedestrian travel requires a network of sidewalks without gaps and with accommodations for people with disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). There are instances, particularly in rural areas, where a wide shoulder is an acceptable substitute for a sidewalk. Safe pedestrian and bicycle travel requires protected crossings, marked crosswalks and pedestrian signals where warranted. One opportunity to develop and implement bicycle and pedestrian facilities is the Transportation Alternative Programs (TAP), administered by ODOT. In FFY 2016, seven TAP projects were awarded in the SORTPO region to the following communities: Apache, Bessie, Chickasha, Duncan, Elk City, Hobart, and Lawton. In FFY 2019, the communities of Comanche, Thomas and Waurika were awarded TAP grants.


Page 40

Public Transportation Public transportation systems and services in rural areas are limited. Low population densities in the SORTPO region and the distances between activity centers complicate the delivery of public transportation in rural areas. There are limited activity generators (mostly job destinations) that produce concentrations of transit need. That is, at least one (1) end of a trip is concentrated enough that public transit may be attractive. The difficulty then becomes establishing feasible routes and scheduling service such that the trip is acceptable to the workers. Federal, state and especially local funding is limited. This limits the type and level of service that can be provided. ODOT’s Transit Programs Division is responsible for the administration of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grants for rural transit operations. Service provided within the SORTPO region is limited to demand response service. This service is provided based on a pre-arrangement or an agreement between a passenger (or group of passengers or an agency representing passengers) and a transportation provider for those needing “curb-to-curb” transportation. The pre-arrangement may be scheduled well in advance or, if available, on short notice and may be for a single trip or for repetitive trips over an extended period (called “subscription service”). Demand response services in Greer County are provided by Southwest Transit Transportation. Southwest Transit began under the guidance of a group of volunteers known as the Road Runners with the Altus Christian Ministries. The program provided rides for seniors and persons with disabilities to shopping and medical appointments. In 1983, Southwest Transit management was shifted to the South West Oklahoma Community Action Group. The Transit System operates twenty-seven (27) vehicles including mini-vans and cutaway buses. According to their website Southwest Transit provides transportation to Head Start and day-care children, non-emergency medical transportation, transportation for employment and education, and provides transportation to our service men and women at the Altus Air Force Base. Transit services are available in Altus, Hollis, Mangum, and Granite on a demand response basis. Additional services include:

• Feeder routes from Altus to Lawton to connect to Jefferson Bus and from Altus to Elk City to connect to Greyhound, and

• Altus Express shuttle operates in Altus from 6:00PM to 2:10AM on Friday and Saturday nights. The route originates at the Altus Air Force Base, Club Altus and travels Main Street and East Broadway to stop at local favourites. This route is repeated hourly and supported by local businesses and rider donations.


Page 41

The ODOT 2012 Transit Gap and Overview Analysis results revealed the need for coordination of existing services. Development and implementation of a coordinated system approach to delivery of transit services will enhance the opportunities for rural communities to reach destinations outside of the region.

Aviation The Oklahoma Airport System Plan classifies airports by their functional classification: Regional Business Airport (RBA), District Airport (DA) and Community Airport (CA). These classifications were developed to characterize each airport on how they relate to each other. The concept of classification of airports is like the concept of classifying the roadway system. A RBA serves multiple communities. Normally, it will serve:

• a community of at least 5,000 persons, generally larger, • a county population of 10,000 or more persons,

serve major employers (businesses with 50 or more employees), • located near the center of a local sustaining economy, and

closely match the local sustaining economies identified by the Oklahoma Department of Commerce.

Features of a DA include providing access to a part of the state that is not well served by a RBA. Typically, these airports will,

• have a supporter with a defined interest in promoting airport and with a demonstrated financial capability,

• about five or more based aircraft at these airports or an equivalent number of annual itinerant operations, and

• airports are attended, aviation gasoline is available and there is a public terminal building.

The CA airports are entry-level airports. These airports regularly serve small communities, where the city population is less than 5,000, and for many, the population is less than 2,000,

• normally these airports are not attended, have no services available, and • the sponsor has limited financial capability to fund capital improvement

projects. The SORTPO area consists of twenty-two (22) general aviation airports identified in Table 2.5. Greer County is home to one public airport and is illustrated on Map 2.1. Table 2.5: SORPTO Public Airports


Page 42

CITY COUNTY AIRPORT NAME TYPE OF AIRPORT

OWNER

Sayre Beckham Sayre Municipal CA Municipal

Elk City Beckham Elk City Regional RBA Municipal

Carnegie Caddo Carnegie Municipal CA Municipal

Anadarko Caddo Anadarko Municipal DA Municipal

Hinton Caddo Hinton Municipal DA Municipal

Lawton Comanche Lawton-Ft. Sill Regional RBA Municipal

Walters Cotton Walters Municipal CA Municipal

Clinton Custer Clinton Regional RBA Municipal

Weatherford Custer Thomas P Stafford RBA Municipal

Chickasha Grady Chickasha Municipal RBA Municipal

Mangum Greer Scott Field DA Municipal

Hollis Harmon Hollis Municipal DA Municipal

Altus Jackson Altus/Quartz Mt. Reg. RBA Municipal

Hobart Kiowa Hobert Regional RBA Municipal

Purcell McClain Purcell DA Municipal

Cheyenne Roger Mills Migon Laird Municipal CA Municipal

Duncan Stephens Halliburton Field RBA Municipal

Tipton Tillman Tipton Municipal CA Municipal

Grandfield Tillman Grandfield Municipal DA Municipal

Frederick Tillman Frederick Regional RBA Municipal

Cordell Washita Cordell Municipal CA Municipal

Burns Flat Washita Clinton/Sherman RBA Municipal Source: Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission


Page 43

Chapter 3: Future Conditions and Improvements The objective of the Future Conditions and Planned Improvements chapter is to portray a “snapshot” of typical daily traffic conditions in the county for the year 2040. It is assumed that only those projects included in the current ODOT eight (8) year construction plan, County Improvements for Road & Bridges Program (CIRB) and projects funded by local governments will be constructed by the year 2040.

Future Conditions Jackson County population and employment is projected to increase by the year 2040. This growth is attributed to the addition of the KC-46 Pegasus refueling aircraft and training center at Altus Air Force Base. The Base serves as the primary training center for KC-46 flight crews. This addition is expected to produce approximately 600 additional jobs at the base. Employment and population projections were developed based on local development knowledge, location of employment and activity centers and growth at Altus Air Force Base. Growth was calcuated at approximately .5% per decade and a .5% growth between 2035 and 2040, totaling a 2040 population projection of 28,933 and civilian labor force projection of 12,482. The population and employment projections were distrubuted through the TAZs with primary distribution in the City of Altus, County TAZs 7 and 8. In general, population growth will be greatest in the following TAZs: 201, 202, 204, 205, 206, 216, 218 and221. Employment growth will be greatest in TAZs: 216 (Altus Air Force Base) Appendix 3.1 provides the Jackson County 2040 projected population and employment by TAZ. Within Jackson County, there may be areas that experience congestion such as areas near major activity generators. Studies to identify specific causes and solutions for these areas will need to be considered on a case by case basis. As population changes the impact on the traffic volume and roadway capacity will need to be re-examined. Increase in truck freight growth on the State and US Highways is projected to increase as shown in Figure 3.1.


Page 44

Figure 3.1: Projected Average Daily Long-Haul Traffic on NHS 2040

Source: Freight Analysis Framework (FAF)


Page 45

2040 Transportation Improvements Not all service needs for the transportation system are for constructed improvements. In many instances additional data will need to be collected and studies developed to provide a complete list of needs. In the interim projected construction improvement needs will rely on information, data, programs implemented by state, tribal governments, rail line companies, county and city governments. Improvements Future transportation projects in Jackson County includes projects listed in Table 3.1 and Appendix 3.2 which illustrates the locations of projects identified in the ODOT 8 Year Construction Work Program for years 2017-2020, CIRB FY 2017-2021, and the FY 2017-2020 Asset Preservation Program. Table 3.1: Future Projects

CITY/TOWN LOCATION DESCRIPTION Altus Falcon Rd. from Main St to

Park Ln. Full replacement and widening of roadway to construction super 3 lane street with concrete pavement

Altus Navajoe Gateway Project Phase V from Navajoe St. to Horizon Dr.

Street Scape improvements new sidewalks and new curb and gutters.

Altus Ridgecrest Rd. and Carver Rd. from Broadway to Ridgecrest Rd.

Milling, Chip and Seal resurfacing

Altus N. Park Lane to Falcon Rd. and Tamarack Rd.

Extend sidewalk on N. Park Lane to Falcon Rd. and E. Tamarack Rd.

Altus Falcon Rd. from N. Main St. to Veterans Dr.

Add sidewalk during planning widening and paving of Falcon Rd.

Altus Tamarack Rd. Intersection with Main St.

Widen east side approach to add turn lane full pavement replacement upgrade signalization.

Altus Upgrade Carver Rd. and Market Rd. from Ridgecrest Rd. to Tamarack Rd.

Full replacement of roadway and widening to serve as west truck bypass.

Altus Falcon Rd. from Park Ln. to Veterans Dr.


Altus Intersection of N. Park Lane and Tamarack Rd.

Replace stop signs with signalization.

Altus A St., Grady St., East Ridgecrest Rd, Commerce St., Cypress St.

Overlay various City Streets

Altus Trail (City of Altus 2017 Trails


Page 46

CITY/TOWN LOCATION DESCRIPTION Transportation Improvement Plan thru 2040)

Altus Trail (City of Altus 2017 Transportation Improvement Plan thru 2040)

Pedestrian Facilities

Jackson County District 1

E. County Rd. 159, 207, 20 E. County Rd. 155, 205, 201 S. County Rd. 206, 162, 154 E. County Rd. 160, 210, 214 S. County Rd. 213, 160, 164

Chip, seal and or rebuild


S. County Rd. 199, 173 and 185 E. County Rd. 175, 199, 204 S. County Rd. 202, 173, 169 S. County Rd. 207, 164, 166 E. County Rd. 165, 207, 210 E. County Rd. 169, 210, 204 E. County Rd. 169, 204, 201 S. County Rd. 207, 173, 189 S. County Rd. 205, 175, 176 S. County Rd. 199, 175, 179 E. County Rd. 179, 199, 196 S. County Rd. 216, 164, 163 E. County Rd. 166, 214, 213 S. County Rd. 215, 164, 166

Chip and seal


Carver Rd. S. County Rd. 183-184/E. County Rd. 179 S. County Rd. 183/E. County Rd. 177-178 S. County Rd. 183-184/E. County Rd. 176 S. County Rd. 184/ E. County Rd. 178-179

Chip and seal


Page 47

CITY/TOWN LOCATION DESCRIPTION S. County Rd./Hwy 34/E. County Rd. 168 S. County Rd./Hwy 62/E. County Rd. 163 S. County Rd. 188-189/E. County Rd. 168 S. County Rd. 188-190/E. County Rd. 177 S. County Rd. 190/191/E. County Rd. 177

Source: City of Altus 2040 Transportation Improvement Plan, Jackson County Commissioners


Page 48

Chapter 4: Financial Summary

Financial Assessment The assessment is intended to summarize federal, state and local transportation funding sources. Federal In general, transportation revenues continue to follow an unsustainable course as multiple factors force the funding available for transportation continues a downward trend. For example, both the Oklahoma and federal gas tax rates are fixed on a per-gallon basis, and therefore gas tax revenues are not responsive to inflation. There is a price elasticity associated with gasoline. Consumers change driving habits and stop purchasing gasoline as the price per gallon increases and then revenues generated from gasoline sales decrease. As the cost of transportation infrastructure projects increases, the amount of revenue generated from the gas tax remains static. It is not possible to maintain past levels of transportation investments as per capita collections continue to decline. Additionally, as cars become more fuel efficient, drivers pay less in gas taxes. At the same time, the wear and tear on roadways caused by these vehicles remains the same. The federal funding levels related to highways are typically established through authorizing legislation commonly referred to as the Federal Highway Bill. This legislation normally authorizes projected funding levels for a period of six years. Consistent, long-term funding anticipations are critical to understand the expected annual federal funding availability and prepare projects accordingly. Each year, the legislation is funded through the Administration’s budgeting and the congressional appropriations processes. The primary source for the dedicated federal transportation funding appropriation is the gasoline and diesel tax deposits directed to the Highway Trust Fund. The department of transportation in each state is designated as the cognizant or recipient agency to interact with the representative federal agency, the Federal Highway Administration. Therefore, federal funding for roads and bridges is administered by ODOT regardless of facility ownership. All traditional, congressionally identified or discretionarily funded city street and county road projects that utilize federal highway funding are administered by and through ODOT. Taxes on gasoline and other motor fuels are collected and distributed from the Federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF) and are distributed to the states by the FHWA and the FTA to each state through a system of formula grants and discretionary allocations. Motor fuels taxes, consisting of the 18.4-cent per gallon tax on gasoline and 24-cent per gallon tax on diesel fuels, are the trust


Page 49

fund’s main dedicated revenue source. Taxes on the sale of heavy vehicles, truck tires and the use of certain kinds of vehicles bring in smaller amounts of revenue for the trust fund. Surface Transportation Program (STP) is federal funds utilized on road projects. These STP funds may provide up to eighty percent (80%) of the construction costs of these projects. Counties fund the remaining twenty percent (20%) match for construction costs, plus the costs for engineering, right of way and utility relocation through local sources or state fund. taxes. Appendix 4.1 identifies the transportation funding categories. State Funding for highway improvements in Oklahoma comes primarily from two sources – federal and revolving funds including federal and state motor fuel taxes directed to the Highway Trust Fund and the State Transportation Fund along with the Rebuilding Oklahoma Access and Driver Safety (ROADS) fund as initiated by House Bill 1078 in 2005. House Bill 2248 and House Bill 2249 provide funding to reduce the number of structurally deficient bridges and deteriorating road conditions on the state highway system. In 1923, Oklahoma enacted its first state level excise tax on motor fuels. The last increase was in 1987 and the tax is currently seventeen cents (17¢) per gallon for gasoline and diesel at fourteen cents (14¢). There is also a transportation dedicated 5 cents per gasoline gallon equivalent excise tax on natural gas used for motor vehicle fuel Oklahoma’s primary sources of funding for road and bridge construction and maintenance are derived from fuel taxes and motor vehicle tax. The motor fuel taxes that are deposited to the State Transportation Fund (STF) are gasoline excise tax, diesel fuel excise tax, special fuel use tax, and special fuel decals. The fuel tax is assessed on consumers when they purchase fuel, and the gasoline tax is the largest generator of revenue to the STF. The motor fuel tax revenues are also apportioned to municipalities and county governments for road and bridge repair and maintenance and to Native American Tribes. In addition to the above taxes the ROADS Fund is guaranteed an annual apportionment equal to the amount apportioned for the previous year plus an additional $59.7 million until it reaches a cap of $575 million. In FY 2015 the Fund received $416.8 million. In addition, the County Improvement for Roads and Bridges (CIRB) fund, as administered by ODOT was increased to 20% of motor vehicle registration fees and capped at $120 million beginning in SFY 2016. Table 4.1 summarizes the state funding categories supporting transportation. Appendix 4.2 summarizes transportation funding categories, funding eligibility and funding limits provided at the state level. Table 4.1: State Funding Categories


Page 50

FY13 Actual FY14 Actual FY15 Actual FY16 Budget State

Transportation Fund

$206,405,702 $208,707,119 $197,228,227 $184,901,463

Motor Fuel Tax – HP Bridges

$6,047,108 $6,130,546 $6,238,149 $6,200,000

Income Tax $297,400,000 $357,100,000 $416,800,000 $476,500,000

Total allocation

$509,852,810 $571,937,665 $620,266,376 $667,601,463

OTA Transfers $41,340,937 $41,712,534 $44,049,331 $42,000,000

Total State Revenue

$551,193,747 $613,650,199 $664,315,707 $709,601,463

CIP Debt Service

$11,526,973 $11,358,296 $0 $0

ROADS Debt Service

$32,367,490 $35,971,788 $42,599,529 $36,434,743

Highways and Bridges

$495,399,284 $554,420,115 $612,316,178 $662,766,720

Lake & Industrial

Access $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,500,000

Passenger Rail $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000

Public Transit $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,000,000

Intermodal $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000 $1,900,000

Total Allocation

$551,193,747 $613,650,199 $664,315,707 $709,601,463

Source: ODOT

Public transportation funding for rural transit agencies is as follows: - ODOT receives FTA’s Section 5311 funding. - Subrecipients submit application for Section 5311 funds annually. - ODOT reviews application which includes service areas. Service areas

usually include multiple counties and/or city limits. - Funds are allocated to eligible sub recipients based on the average of their

last two previous years of performance measures (i.e. revenue miles, passenger trips, etc.) within their pre-approved Section 5311 service areas.

- Subrecipients are reimbursed for eligible administrative, operational, and capital expense, at specific rates, for services performed within their total pre-approved Section 5311 service areas.


Page 51

The total expenditures identified in Table 4.1 are within the total federal, state and local revenues estimated for the 2040 LRTP and are adequate to fund the projects listed. Funding of local transportation projects and programs is heavily influenced by the State of Oklahoma’s annual budget and federal funding. Transportation funding sources based on motor vehicle fuel taxes tend to fluctuate with changes in fuel prices and fuel consumption. While most taxes are not tied to fuel prices, when gas prices go up, consumption tends to go down and thus tax revenues decline. Oklahoma’s state budget continues to experience historic downfall revenues and these downfalls have a negative impact on the transportation system. With this plan development, it is anticipated that there will continue to be a downfall in available revenue for transportation programs and projects. Therefore, the coordination with local, regional and statewide agencies in the development of transportation programs and projects is significant to accomplish the projects. County The main funding program for county roads and bridges is the county highway fund, which consists of revenues from the state taxes on gasoline and diesel fuels as well as motor vehicle registration fees and a portion of the of the state gross production tax on oil and gas in the case of counties that have oil and gas production. A county’s apportionment is based on several formulas that use proportional shares of each factor as it relates to the total statewide county totals. Counties that have oil and natural gas production receive a portion of the seven percent (7%) state tax on natural gas and oil. Counties have authority to impose a countywide sales tax for roads and bridges with revenues earmarked for roads and bridges. Appendix 4.3 summarizes the funding categories and taxes apportioned by the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) for FY 2011 -2015 in addition to revenues apportioned by the OTC the recognized tribal governments who receive federal funds and may also designate their own local funds for transportation projects. Counties and tribal governments have been successful in working together to coordinate implementation of transportation projects. The opportunity to utilize a combination of funding sources for transportation projects is an opportunity that counties value. Challenges faced by local and state governments include: dependence on revenues from the state gas tax; the state’s fixed rate gas tax and major disaster declarations and impact on the infrastructure. In the summer of 2006 a law created the County Improvements for Roads and Bridges (CIRB) program. The funds apportioned to the program are in equal amounts to the eight Transportation Commission Districts. The sole purpose of the funds is for the construction or reconstruction of county roads or bridges on the county highway system that are the highest priority. Funds may accumulate annual funding for a period of up to five years for a specific project. Information obtained from a report published by the National Association of Counties, funds collected by OTC for transportation projects are distributed directly to the counties. Revenues specifically for the CIRB category are collected from state


Page 52

gasoline and diesel tax, special fuel tax and state gross production tax on oil. Appendix 4.4 summarizes the CIRB for Jackson County. The county uses a small percentage of tax revenues for maintenance and minor improvements, relying on outside funding sources for major improvements. The County Commissioners established Circuit Engineering Districts (CEDs) to provide common engineering and project support services. All potential transportation projects are initiated by the County Commissioners and are coordinated with the appropriate CED who directs the development of the recommended list of projects to be considered by ODOT for inclusion in the CIRB Construction Work Plan. ODOT and the Transportation Commission have the responsibility for the expenditure of the CIRB funding. When the CIRB Construction Work Plan is approved, ODOT coordinates and cooperates with the Counties and the CEDs in management of the project. Local The main source of funding for community transportation projects is found in the general operating budgets. Generally, these funds are derived by city sales tax and fees. Funding for rural transportation projects may also be available through federal sources such as Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) through Oklahoma Dept. of Commerce, Economic Development Administration (EDA), and US Department of Agriculture Rural Development (USDA RD) programs. Oklahoma has limited funding available for projects through Rural Economic Action Plan (REAP) administered by Councils of Government (COG).


Page 53

Chapter 5: Public Participation Summary This chapter presents and describes the public participation tools the RTPOs utilize as part of the planning process. Public participation is a federal requirement outlined in MAP21 and The FAST Act. SORTPO has an adopted Public Participation Plans (PPP) that was followed.

Environmental Justice FHWA has long embraced non-discrimination policy to make sure federally funded activities (planning through implementation) are not disproportionately adversely impacting certain populations. These populations include low income persons and populations as defined by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Poverty Guidelines and minority persons and populations (Black, Hispanic, Asian American, American Indian and Alaskan Natives). As such, public involvement and outreach for the LRTP must adhere to Presidential Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice (EJ). Jackson County’s racial and ethnic composition is 82.0% White, followed by 21.9% Hispanic or Latino, and 7.2% African American. In comparison, Oklahoma is 75.4% White, 9.6% Hispanic or Latino and 7.7% African American. The LRTP process identified EJ populations through a comparison of the racial and ethnic composition of the county. Additional information is found in Appendix 5.1. Low income populations were also identified for Jackson County. Low income populations are defined by the FHWA for transportation planning purposes as families of four (4) with a household income that is below the poverty guidelines set by HHS. The 2014 HHS poverty guideline for a family of four (4) is twenty- four thousand three hundred dollars ($24,300.00).

Coordination with Other Plans The process to identify goals and objectives for the county started with a review and comparison of goals and objectives from other related planning documents and policies to ensure general consistency. This review included:

• FAST Act Federal Planning Factors, • MAP-21 Federal Planning Factors, • 2012 Transit Gap Overview and Analysis, • Oklahoma Mobility Plan, • 2017 City of Altus Transportation Improvement Plan thru 2040, • Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission, and • ODOT 2015-2040 Long Range Transportation Plan


Page 54

Conversation and consultation has been initiated and will be ongoing with the local and State Agencies (including, but not limited to: State Historic Preservation Office, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Aeronautics Commission, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. All the above agencies will be given an opportunity for input during the Public Review and Comment period. Public involvement is an integral part of the transportation process. SORTPO is proactive in its efforts to effectively communicate with the public and has adopted a PPP to ensure that the transportation planning process and procedures complies with federal requirement for public involvement and participation. These procedures provide opportunities for the public to take an active role in the decision-making process. The SORTPO has hosted 15 public meetings and/or provided notice of availability for public outreach to involve interested parties in the early stages of the plan development. Notices of public hearings and/or notices of availability for public outreach for the RTPO were published in local newspapers and SORTPO website. Surveys were distributed throughout the County and were made available on at www.sortpo.org. Appendix 5.2 provides a summary of the survey results. Appendix 5.3 contains information identifying the public outreach processes utilized in development of the 2040 Jackson County LRTP.



Page 55

Chapter 6: Transportation Recommendations

This chapter identifies the recommendations and summary of improvements that were developed because of the previous review of demographics, growth, activity generators, transportation system and other such issues. It is assumed that only Jackson County projects included in the current ODOT eight (8) year construction program and CIRB will be constructed by the year 2040. The projects included in the LRTP may have potential funding from a single source or multiple sources. Each project has its own unique components relative to only that project and while there are many funding programs within various state and federal agencies, each project must be evaluated on its own merits to determine which programs will apply. It should be noted that while many potential funding sources are identified for each project, these represent the primary sources and additional sources not listed may also be available. When implementing this plan, SORTPO will continue to review potential funding sources as they become available or as projects become eligible for other sources. SORTPO will expand on this effort by identifying additional projects that are needed in the county and helping local governments with the identification of funding sources for those projects. Not all the recommendations are for constructed improvements. In some cases, studies must be conducted to determine if the improvement is warranted (installation of new traffic signals, for example). In other cases, studies should be undertaken to develop a comprehensive set of solutions.

Committed Improvements The ODOT 8 Year Construction Work Program FY 2017-2024 assembles projects according to anticipated state and federal fund categories. Regarding federally funded projects, the current plan is fiscally balanced in that the total project costs do not exceed the anticipated federal funds. ODOT policy prohibits start of future projects until all funding is in place and federal regulations dictate projects cannot be programmed in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) unless there is a programmatic and financial game plan for completing the project within six (6) years. Appendix 6.1 includes a list of projects through the year 2040 including projects identified the ODOT 8 Year Construction Work Program for years 2017-2020, CIRB FY 2017-2021, FY 2017-2020 Asset Preservation and other projects such as development of studies, plans, and collection of data identified in Chapter 1 goals and strategies. The development of studies, plans and collection of data can be included in SORTPO’s Planning Work Program (PWP).


Page 56

APPENDICES


Page 57

Appendix A: Resolution 09-04

RESOLUTION NO. 09-04

CREATION OF THE RURAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION COMMITTEE

WHEREAS, local business and community leaders have expressed a strong desire to convene and discuss transportation needs and goals in the eight-county SWODA Region, and WHEREAS, regional transportation planning is encouraged by legislation of the Federal Highway Administration, and WHEREAS, SWODA is the federally recognized regional planning organization for the eight-county area, and WHEREAS, the SWODA Board of Trustees seeks to facilitate the planning process for surface, air and rail development to aid the region in economic development, workforce development, business and industry growth, tourism development and other pursuits; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Trustees of the South-Western Oklahoma Development Authority does hereby create the Rural Transportation Planning Organization as a standing committee of the Authorit y .

PASSED AND APPROVED this 13th day of October 2009.

ATTEST:

Mike Brown MIKE BROWN, Secretary


Page 58

Appendix B: Resolution 16-06


Page 59

Appendix C: Acronyms

ACS American Community Survey

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ASCOG Association of South Central Oklahoma Governments

BNSF Burlington Norther Santa Fe

CA Community Airport

CED Circuit Engineering District

CIP Capital Improvement Program

CIRB County Improvement for Roads and Bridges

C/L County Line

COEDD Central Oklahoma Economic Development District

COG Council of Government

CORTPO Central Oklahoma Regional Transportation Planning Organization

DA District Airport

EDA Economic Development Administration

EJ Environmental Justice

FAST Act Fixing America’s Transportation Act

FAT Fatality

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FY Fiscal Year

FFY Federal Fiscal Year

GIS Geographic Information System

HHS Health and Human Services

HTF Highway Trust Fund

HWY Highway

INJ Injury

IRI International Roughness Index

JCT Junction


Page 60

KCS Kansas City Southern

LEP Limited English Proficiency

LOS Levels of Service

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

MI Mile(s)

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

MUTCD Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NHFN National Highway Freight Network

NHS National Highway System

NODA Northern Oklahoma Development Authority

NORTPO Northern Oklahoma Regional Transportation Planning Organization

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OARC Oklahoma Association of Regional Councils

ODEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality

ODOT Oklahoma Department of Transportation

OTA Oklahoma Turnpike Authority

PD Property Damage

PHFS Primary Highway Freight System

POE Port of Entry

PPP Public Participation Plan

PWP Planning Work Program

RBA Regional Business Airport

REAP Rural Economic Action Plan

RTPO Regional Transportation Planning Organization

SH State Highway

S/L State Line

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

SORTPO Southwest Oklahoma Regional Transportation Planning Organization


Page 61

SPR State Planning & Research

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

STP Surface Transportation Program

STRAHNET Strategic Highway Network

SWODA South Western Oklahoma Development Authority

TAP Transportation Alternate Program

TAZ Traffic Analysis Zone

UP Union Pacific

US United States

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDOT United States Department of Transportation


Page 62

Appendix D: Definitions Accident Severity Index - A measure of the severity of collisions at a particular location, derived by assigning a numeric value according to the severity of each collision and totaling those numeric values. Capacity - The maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given section of a lane or roadway in one direction during a given period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. Census Tracts - Small areas with generally stable boundaries, defined within counties and statistically equivalent entities, usually in metropolitan areas and other highly populated counties. They are designed to be relatively homogeneous with respect to population characteristics, economic status and living conditions. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) – A comprehensive schedule of capital improvements needed within the city and establishes a program to accomplish those needs within the city's ability to pay. Congestion - The level at which transportation system performance is no longer acceptable to the traveling public due to traffic interference. Environmental Justice (EJ) - The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, culture, education, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. In transportation, this requires review of whether the benefits and burdens of transportation investments appear to be distributed evenly across the regional demographic profile and, if necessary, mitigation of such effects. Functional Classification - Identification and categorization scheme describing streets according to the type of service they provide into one of four categories: principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors and local. Functionally Obsolete Bridge - A bridge inadequate to properly accommodate the traffic can be due to inadequate clearances, either horizontal or vertical, approach roadway alignment, structural condition, or waterway adequacy. Any posted bridge which is not structurally deficient would be included in this category. Structures in this category could include narrow bridges. General Aviation Airport - Provide access to the population and economic activity centers of the state. Level of Service (LOS) - Refers to a standard measurement used by planners


Page 63

which reflects the relative ease of traffic flow on a scale of A to F with free-flow being rated LOS A and congested conditions rated as LOS F. Local Sustaining Economies - Geographical regions that function with some degree of independence from the rest of the state. The Oklahoma Department of Commerce (ODOC) has identified 47 of these regions. Long Range Transportation Plan - Every state and MPO must develop a long-range transportation plan (LRTP) for transportation improvements, including a bicycle and pedestrian element. The LRTP looks twenty (20) years ahead and is revised every five (5) years. Multi-modal - The consideration of more than one mode to serve transportation needs in each area. Refers to the diversity of options for the same trip; also, an approach to transportation planning or programming which acknowledges the existence of or need for transportation options. National Highway System - Represents four percent (4%) to five percent (5%) of the total public road mileage in the US. This system was designed to contain the follow subcategories:

A. Interstate- The current interstate system retained its separate identity within the NHS along with specific provisions to add mileage to the existing Interstate subsystem.

B. Other Principal Arterials- These routes include highways in rural and urban areas which provide access between an arterial route and a major port, airport, public transportation facility or other intermodal transportation facility.

C. Intermodal Connecting Links- These are highways that connect NHS routes to major ports, airports, international border crossings, public transportation and transit facilities, interstate bus terminals and rail and intermodal transportation facilities.

National and State Scenic Byways - Recognize highways that are outstanding examples of our nation’s beauty, culture and recreational experience in exemplifying the diverse regional characteristics of our nation. Primary Commercial Service Airport - An airport that receives scheduled passenger service and enplanes 10,000 or more passengers annually, as reported by the FAA. Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET) - Designation given to roads that provide “defense access, continuity, and emergency capabilities for movements of personnel and equipment in both peace and war.” STRAHNET includes Routes (for long-distance travel) and Connectors (to connect individual installations to the Routes). This system includes the Dwight D. Eisenhower


Page 64

System of Interstate and Defense Highways, identified as strategically important to the defense of the United States. Structurally Deficient Bridge - A bridge can be inadequate to carry legal loads, whether caused by obsolete design standards, structural deterioration, or waterway inadequacy. Structures in this category may include those posted to restrict load limits as well as those closed to all traffic. Surface Transportation Program (STP) - A category of federal transportation funds administered by the Federal Highway Administration and allocated to states and metropolitan areas based on a prescribed formula. This category of funds can provide 80% of the cost to complete transportation improvement projects. These funds are flexible, and can be used for planning design, land acquisition, and construction of highway improvement projects, the capital costs of transit system development, and up to two years of operating assistance for transit system development. Traffic Analysis Zones - A traffic analysis zone is the unit of geography most commonly used in conventional transportation planning models. The size of a zone varies, and will vary significantly between the rural and urban areas. Zones are constructed by census block information. Typically, these blocks are used in transportation models by providing socio-economic data. This information helps to further the understanding of trips that are produced and attracted within the zone.


Page 65

Appendix 1: Performance Measures Performance measures for State departments of transportation (State DOT) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) were established by the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). This Act transformed the Federal-aid highway program by establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds. Performance management increases the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program and provides a framework to support improved investment decision-making through a focus on performance outcomes for key national transportation goals. As part of performance management, recipients of Federal-aid highway funds will make transportation investments to achieve performance targets that make progress toward the following national goals: • Safety—To achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. • Infrastructure condition—To maintain the highway infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair. • Congestion reduction—To achieve a significant reduction in congestion on the NHS. • System reliability—To improve the efficiency of the surface transportation system. • Freight movement and economic vitality—To improve the national freight network, strengthen the ability of rural communities to access national and international trade markets, and support regional economic development. • Environmental sustainability—To enhance the performance of the transportation system while protecting and enhancing the natural environment. • Reduced project delivery delays— To reduce project costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite the movement of people and goods by accelerating project completion through eliminating delays in the project development and delivery process, including reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies’ work practices. State Department of Transportations and Metropolitan Planning Organizations will be expected to use the information and data generated as a result of the new regulations to inform their transportation planning and programming decisions. The new performance aspects of the Federal-aid highway program that result from this rule will provide FHWA the ability to better communicate a national performance story and to assess the impacts of Federal funding investments more reliably. The FHWA is required to establish performance measures to assess performance in 12 areas 1 generalized as follows: (1) Serious injuries per vehicle miles traveled (VMT);


Page 66

(2) fatalities per VMT; (3) number of serious injuries; (4) number of fatalities; (5) pavement condition on the Interstate System; (6) pavement condition on the non-Interstate NHS; (7) bridge condition on the NHS; (8) performance of the Interstate System; (9) performance of the non-Interstate NHS; (10) freight movement on the Interstate System; (11) traffic congestion; and (12) on-road mobile source emissions.


Page 67

Appendix 2: Current Conditions Appendix 2.1: Jackson County, Socio Economic Information, 2010-2014

SEX AND AGE 2010-

2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR

2010-2014 ACS %

Total population 26,275 ***** 26,275

Male 12,996 +/-64 49.5%

Female 13,279 +/-64 50.5%

Under 5 years 2,105 +/-39 8.0% 5 to 9 years 2,080 +/-185 7.9% 10 to 14 years 1,647 +/-195 6.3% 15 to 19 years 1,698 +/-107 6.5% 20 to 24 years 2,162 +/-117 8.2% 25 to 34 years 3,702 +/-126 14.1% 35 to 44 years 3,146 +/-108 12.0% 45 to 54 years 3,256 +/-86 12.4% 55 to 59 years 1,679 +/-164 6.4% 60 to 64 years 1,311 +/-148 5.0% 65 to 74 years 1,900 +/-63 7.2% 75 to 84 years 1,240 +/-105 4.7% 85 years and over 349 +/-88 1.3%

Median age (years) 34.0 +/-0.3 (X)

18 years and over 19,473 ***** 74.1% 21 years and over 18,245 +/-170 69.4% 62 years and over 4,283 +/-154 16.3% 65 years and over 3,489 +/-76 13.3%

65 years and over 3,489 +/-76 3,489 Male 1,533 +/-36 43.9% Female 1,956 +/-58 56.1%

Race

Total population 26,275 ***** 26,275 One race 24,235 +/-310 92.2% Two or more races 2,040 +/-310 7.8%

One race 24,235 +/-310 92.2% White 19,722 +/-348 75.1%


Page 68

SEX AND AGE 2010-

2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR

2010-2014 ACS %

Black or African American 1,951 +/-133 7.4% American Indian and Alaska Native 374 +/-128 1.4% Cherokee tribal grouping 62 +/-40 0.2% Chippewa tribal grouping 0 +/-17 X Navajo tribal grouping 0 +/-17 X Sioux tribal grouping 0 +/-17 X Asian 347 +/-57 1.3% Asian Indian 65 +/-68 0.2% Chinese 38 +/-38 0.1% Filipino 111 +/-58 0.4% Japanese 39 +/-42 0.1% Korean 38 +/-42 0.1% Vietnamese 7 +/-11 X Other Asian 49 +/-63 0.2% Native Hawaiian /Other Pacific Islander 70 +/-65 0.3% Native Hawaiian 30 +/-38 0.1% Guamanian or Chamorro 0 +/-17 X Samoan 40 +/-50 0.2% Other Pacific Islander 0 +/-17 X Some other race 1,771 +/-309 6.7%

Source: 2010-2014 ACS

Appendix 2.2: Jackson County, Housing Occupancy 2010-2014

2010-

2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR

2010-2014 ACS %

Housing Occupancy Total housing units 12,106 +/-85 12,106

Occupied housing units 10,407 +/-258 86.0%

Vacant housing units 1,699 +/-233 14.0%

Homeowner vacancy rate 4.3 +/-2.2 (X)

Rental vacancy rate 5.5 +/-2.3 (X)



Page 69

Appendix 2.3: Jackson County, Educational Attainment 2010 – 2014 ACS

TOTAL % OF ENROLLED POPULATION

In public school In private school

2010-2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR

2010-2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR

2010-2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR Population 25 years and over

16,583 +/-94 8,004 +/-66 8,579 +/-70

Less than 9th grade

8.4% +/-1.5 8.5% +/-1.5 8.4% +/-2.0

9th to 12th grade, no diploma

8.3% +/-1.2 8.0% +/-1.9 8.7% +/-1.6

High school graduate/GED

27.6% +/-1.9 25.6% +/-2.4 29.4% +/-2.8

Some college, no degree

26.6% +/-2.1 28.6% +/-3.3 24.6% +/-3.0

Associate's degree

9.3% +/-1.3 9.8% +/-1.7 8.8% +/-1.5

Bachelor's degree

12.8% +/-1.7 12.7% +/-2.4 13.0% +/-2.1

Graduate or professional degree

7.0% +/-1.1 6.8% +/-1.4 7.1% +/-1.7

Percent high school graduate or higher

83.2% +/-1.8 83.5% +/-2.1 82.9% +/-2.6

Percent bachelor's degree or higher

19.8% +/-2.1 19.5% +/-2.6 20.1% +/-2.5



Page 70

Appendix 2.4: Jackson County, Housing Units and Vehicles Available 2010– 2014 ACS

Occupied housing units

Owner-occupied housing units

Renter-occupied housing units

2010-2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR

2010-2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR

2010-2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR Occupied Housing

Units 10,407 +/-258 6,165 +/-239 4,242 +/-282

Units in Structure

1, detached 82.3% +/-2.0 93.4% +/-1.4 66.1% +/-4.2

1, attached 3.0% +/-1.1 0.5% +/-0.5 6.6% +/-2.7

2 apartments 1.3% +/-0.7 0.0% +/-0.3 3.2% +/-1.7

3 or 4 apartments

1.8% +/-0.8 0.0% +/-0.3 4.3% +/-2.1

5 to 9 apartments

3.2% +/-1.0 0.0% +/-0.3 7.9% +/-2.4

10 or more apartments

4.1% +/-1.2 0.1% +/-0.2 9.9% +/-2.7

Mobile home or other

4.4% +/-0.9 6.0% +/-1.3 2.0% +/-0.9

Vehicles Available

No vehicle available

5.5% +/-1.4 2.1% +/-0.9 10.3% +/-3.0

1 vehicle available

34.2% +/-2.6 24.1% +/-3.1 48.9% +/-5.4

2 vehicles available

39.2% +/-2.7 44.6% +/-3.5 31.3% +/-4.8

3 or more vehicles available

21.1% +/-2.2 29.1% +/-2.8 9.4% +/-2.8



Page 71

Appendix 2.5: Jackson County, Employment Status and Commute to Work 2010 – 2014 ACS

2010-2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR

PERCENT MARGIN OF

ERROR Employment Status

Population 16 years and over 19,894 +/-106 19,894 (X) In labor force 13,016 +/-381 65.4% +/-1.9

Civilian labor force 11,818 +/-457 59.4% +/-2.3

Employed 10,960 +/-500 55.1% +/-2.5

Unemployed 858 +/-184 4.3% +/-0.9

Armed Forces 1,198 +/-203 6.0% +/-1.0

Not in labor force 6,878 +/-391 34.6% +/-1.9

Civilian labor force 11,818 +/-457 11,818 (X)

Percent Unemployed (X) (X)

Commuting to Work

Workers 16 years and over 11,885 +/-396 11,885 (X)

Car, truck, van - drove alone 9,755 +/-395 82.1% +/-2.0

Car, truck, van - carpooled 1,332 +/-224 11.2% +/-1.9

Public transit -not taxicab 22 +/-24 0.2% +/-0.2

Walked 344 +/-142 2.9% +/-1.2

Other means 173 +/-71 1.5% +/-0.6

Worked at home 259 +/-144 2.2% +/-1.2

Mean travel time to work (min) 14.4 +/-1.1 (X) (X)



Page 72

Appendix 2.6: Jackson County Occupation and Industry 2010 – 2014 ACS

Occupation 2010-2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR

PERCENT MARGIN OF

ERROR Civilian employed population 16 years and over

10,960 +/-500 10,960 (X)

Management, business, science, and arts occupations

3,112 +/-345 28.4% +/-2.7

Service occupations 2,432 +/-297 22.2% +/-2.5

Sales and office occupations 2,252 +/-275 20.5% +/-2.4

Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations

1,624 +/-207 14.8% +/-1.91

Production, transportation, and material moving occupations

1,540 +/-284 14.1% +/-2.5

Industry

Civilian employed population 16 years and over

10,960 +/-500 10,960 (X)

Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining

665 +/-133 6.1% +/-1.2

Construction 637 +/-112 5.8% +/-1.0

Manufacturing 975 +/-217 8.9% +/-2.0

Wholesale trade 181 +/-79 1.7% +/-0.7

Retail trade 1,254 +/-199 11.4% +/-1.9

Transportation and warehousing, and utilities

430 +/-113 3.9% +/-1.0

Information 127 +/-88 1.2% +/-0.8

Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing

436 +/-140 4.0% +/-1.2

Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services

567 +/-203 5.2% +/-1.8

Educational services, and health care and social assistance

2,711 +/-283 24.7% +/-2.4

Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services

1,106 +/-261 10.1% +/-2.2

Other services, except public administration

325 +/-97 3.0% +/-0.9

Public administration 1,546 +/-318 14.1% +/-2.9


Page 73

Occupation 2010-2014 ACS

MARGIN OF

ERROR

PERCENT MARGIN OF

ERROR Class of Worker

Civilian employed population 16 years and over

10,960 +/-500 10,960 (X)

Private wage and salary workers 7,199 +/-484 65.7% +/-3.1

Government workers 3,098 +/-330 28.3% +/-2.8

Self-employed in own not incorporated business workers

656 +/-141 6.0% +/-1.2

Unpaid family workers 7 +/-7 0.1% +/-0.1


Appendix 2.7: Mode of Travel to Work Jackson County, 2010-14 ACS

Mode to Work 2010-2014 ACS

PERCENT MARGIN OF

ERROR

Total Workers 11,274 +/-421

Drove alone 9757 81.5% +/-2.4

2-person Carpool 1058 10.3% +/-1.8

3-or-more-person Carpool 155 1.6% +/-0.8

Public Transportation 23 0.2% +/-,.2

Bike 12 0.2% +/-0.3

Walked 345 2.3% +/-0.9

Taxi, Motorcycle and Other means

166 1.0% +/-0.5

Worked at Home 261 2.1% +/-1.2



Page 74

Appendix 2.8: Jackson County 2010 Population and Employment by TAZ

RVSD. TAZ NO.

2010 POP.

2010 EMPL.

1 202 35

2 314 75

3 657 65

4 709 25

5 644 20

6 374 35

7 513 30

8 523 40

9 633 50

10 406 35

11 90 75

12 103 25

13 359 125

14 38 155

15 13 45

16 42 205

100 147 25

101 669 35

200 0 5

201 97 205

202 445 45

203 247 0

204 485 0

205 575 0

206 441 0

207 396 95

208 471 105

209 480 0

210 492 125

211 423 75

212 408 250

213 392 0

214 293 150

215 320 0

216 1603 5000

217 3 65


Page 75

RVSD. TAZ NO.

2010 POP.

2010 EMPL.

218 707 25

219 561 65

220 479 0

221 504 85

222 393 0

223 545 0

224 342 0

225 606 45

226 425 125

227 5 285

228 562 0

229 74 285

230 437 0

231 432 0

232 489 0

233 0 90

234 244 90

235 0 190

236 53 350

237 129 360

238 285 375

239 593 450

240 574 85

241 233 290

242 444 285

243 361 125

244 305 320

245 415 205

246 403 15

247 396 0

248 119 0

249 575 0

250 127 0

251 622 100

Source: SORTPO, Oklahoma Employment Security Commission, American Fact Finders


Page 76

Appendix 2.9: Jackson County Major Employers

BUSINESS / INDUSTRY NAME

STREET ADDRESS CITY 2016 #

EMPLOYEES TAZ

REVISED TAZ

1st National Bank 110 E. Broadway Altus

20-49 149 149

Ace Hardware 300 Falcon Rd Altus 10-19 121 121

Agpreference 3120 N. Main Altus 10-19 103 103 Altus Air Force Base 301 N 1st Street Altus

5,000 162 162

Altus Christian Academy 1220 N Grady Altus

30 12 12

Altus High School 400 N Park Ave. Altus 100 143 143 Altus Intermediate School 1221 N Howes St.

Altus 62 127 127

Altus Jr. High School 1600 S. Park Ln

Altus 70 157 157

Altus Police Dept. 509 S Main St Altus 50-99 150 150

Altus Primary School 1200 Glenda St

Altus 50 158 158

Altus Public Works Dept. 1417 N Jackson St

Altus 100-249 153 153

Angel Care Health 1008 N. Main

Altus 10-19 121 121

Applebee’s Restaurant 3501 N Main St

Altus 50-99 102 102

Arbys 1201 N. Main Altus 20-49 135 135

Atwoods 2220 N. Main Altus 20-49 110 110

Bar-S- Food 500 S Bar S Blvd Altus 500-999 144 144

Braum’s 2505 N. Main Altus 20-49 112 112

Braum’s 515 E. Broadway Altus 20-49 141 141

Burger King 2516 E. Broadway Altus 20-49 145 145

Cancer Center of SW Ok 1200 E. Broadway

Altus 10-19 146 146

Carter Health Care 1015 E. Broadway

Altus 10-19 143 143

City of Altus 509 S. Main Altus 220 150 150

Days Inn Hotel 2804 N. Main Altus 20-49 103 103

Dish Network 1116 N. Main Altus 10-19 135 135 Dr Pepper and Snapple 400 1/2 S. Main Altus

20-49 150 150

English Village Manor Nursing

1515 Canterbury Blvd.

Altus 120 126 126


Page 77



EMPLOYEES TAZ

REVISED TAZ

Home

EZ Go 2516 E. Broadway Altus 10-19 145 145

First National Bank Altus

110 E. Broadway St

Altus 20-49 141 141

Fox Bldg. Supply & Carpet 2401 E. Broadway

Altus 20-49 131 131

Frazer Bank 110 E. Broadway St.

Altus 72 149 149

Fred's Famous Fish & Steakhouse

2011 N. Main St. Altus 20-49 115 115

Gallager Ortho 3216 Main St. Altus 10-19 103 103

Grace Living Center 2610 Cedar Ave.

Altus 50-99 108 108

Hampton Inn 3601 N. Main St. Altus 20 102 102

Health Watch Home Health 103 S. Hudson

Altus 20-49 150 150

Helena Chemical Co 20369 E. CR 158

Altus 10-19 7 7

Herring Bank 721 N. Main St. Altus 50-99 136 136

Holiday Inn Express

2812 E. Broadway St.

Altus 22 144 144

Home Health Care & Hospice

1204 E. Tamarack Rd.

Altus 10-19 108 108

Human Services Dept. 201 S. Main St. St.

Altus 50-99 150 150

Humphrey’s Coop Assoc. 2109 Asphalt Rd.

Altus 36 145 145

INTEGRIS Family Care 201 S. Park Ln.

Altus 20-49 148 148

Jackson County Courthouse 101 N. Main St.

Altus 104 140 140

Jackson County Health Dept.

401 W. Tamarack Rd.

Altus 20-49 140 140

Jackson County Jail 100 N. Hudson

Altus 20-49 140 140

Jackson County Medical Clinic 204 S. Park Ln.

Altus 100-249 145 145

Jackson County Memorial Hospital 1200 E. Pecan St.

Altus 300 146 146

L Mendel Rivers 3000 N. Veterans Altus 50-99 144 144


Page 78



EMPLOYEES TAZ

REVISED TAZ

School Dr.

L-3 Communications 3001 Falcon Rd. Altus 20-49 107 107 Livestock Nutrition 601 Old Mill Rd. Altus

10-19 153 153

Mc Donald's 220 E. Broadway St.

Altus 50-99 149 149

Navajo Public School

15695 S. County Rd.

Altus 55 149 149

NBC Bank 123 W. Commerce

Altus 20-49 139 139

Ok-1 Manufacturing Co

709 S. Veterans Dr.

Altus 50-99 129 129

Oklahoma Cotton Coop 20284 E. CR 165

Altus 20-49 130 130

Plantation Village Nursing Center 2610 Cedar Creek

Altus 100-249 108 108

Planter’s Coop 1015 E. Cypress St.

Altus 6 143 143

Planters Coop 701 S. Lee Altus 50-99 153 153

Plaza IV 2512 N. Main St. St.

Altus 20-49 110 110

Putnam Imports 2600 E. Broadway St.

Altus 50-99 144 144

Red River Federal Credit Union 2721 N. Main St.

Altus 20-49 112 112

Red River Van Lines 1707 E. Broadway

Altus 10-19 131 131

Roosevelt Elementary School 1200 Glenda St.

Altus 20-49 158 158

Shamrock Bank 401 E Tamarack Rd.

Altus 10 13 13

Silva San Juanita Home Care 604 Chris Ave

Altus 10-19 120 120

Sonic Drive-In 1113 N. Main St. Altus 20-49 135 135

Southwest Dedicated Transportation 601 Eastside Dr.

Altus 40 144 144


Page 79



EMPLOYEES TAZ

REVISED TAZ

LLC

Southwest Technology Center

711 W. Tamarack Rd.

Altus 20-49 112 112

Southwest Transit

1401 E. Ridge Crest

Altus 20-49 157 157

Southwestern Youth Services 317 N. Hudson

Altus 20-49 138 138

Stockmans Bank 3421 N. Main St. Altus 10-19 102 102

Sunset Elementary School 1830 Sunset Dr

Altus 20-49 211 211

Taco Bell 1701 N. Main St. Altus 20-49 118 118

Tamarack Assisted Living Center

1224 E. Tamarack Rd.

Altus 20-49 108 108

United Supermarket

600 E. Broadway St.

Altus 79 148 148

UPS Customer Ctr

1811 E Broadway St

Altus 50-99 117 117

USPS 217 W. Cypress St.

Altus 20-49 138 138

Wal-Mart Super Center

2500 N Main St. St.

Altus 300 110 110

Washington Elementary School 311 E Cypress St.

Altus 20-49 141 141

Western Oklahoma State College

2801 N. Main St. St.

Altus 250 102 102

Western Sizzling Restaurant

3200 N. Main St. St.

Altus 50-99 103 103

Whataburger 2728 N. Main St. St.

Altus 20-49 110 110

Will Rogers Elementary 1100 N Forrest St.

Altus 20-49 122 122

Wilmes Chevrolet & Buick 2215 E. Broadway

Altus 50-99 131 131

Wilmes Ford & Lincoln 108 N. Veterans

Altus 50-99 130 130


Page 80



EMPLOYEES TAZ

REVISED TAZ

Wilmes Superstore

108 N Veterans Dr

Altus 20-49 130 130

Wrights Comfort Solutions 1106 N. Spurgeon

Altus 10-19 121 121

All American 105 Zinn St. Blair 5-9 200 100

Blair Public Schools 610 Zinn St.

Blair 40 201 101

Blair Superette 302 Zinn St. Blair 10-19 200 101

The People’s State Bank 117 E. Main St. St.

Blair 6 200 100

Town of Blair 118 W. Main St. Blair 5-9 200 100

USPS 111 E. Main St. Blair 1-4 200 101

American Gypsum Co

18972 US Highway 62

Duke 100-249 400 7

Darby’s Big Furniture 129 Main St. St.

Duke 6 400 7

Duke Public School 300 N Chickasaw

Duke 30 400 7

Farmers & Merchants Bank 400 E. 6th St.

Duke 400 7

Reliant Energy Duke 20-49 400 7

USPS 106 E. 2nd Duke 1-4 400 7

Eldorado Public Schools 200 7th St.

Eldorado 15 500 8

Farmers’ Cooperative Assoc. 18587 St HWY 6

Eldorado 38 500 8

Paupers Corner 102 S. Market Eldorado 1-4 500 8

USPS 116 N. 4th Eldorado 1-4 500 8

City of Eldorado 500 SH 6 Eldorado 1-4 500 8

Great Plains Commodities

21080 US HWY 62

Headrick 15 800 13

T&G Sand Plant 21598 E. CR 167 Headrick 5-9 800 13

USPS 310 N. Broadway Headrick 1-4 800 13

Boars Nest & Grill 522 W. Main St.

Martha 1-4 300 5

Darby’s Big Furniture 129 E. Main St.

Martha 5-9 300 5

Farmers & Merchants Bank 101 E. Main St.

Martha 5-9 300 5

Farmers’ 304 Walnut St. Martha 27 300 5


Page 81



EMPLOYEES TAZ

REVISED TAZ

Cooperative Assoc. Shop Around the Corner 213 E. 2nd

Martha 1-4 300 5

USPS 106 E. Church Martha 1-4 300 5

Olustee Pit Stop 121 E. 4th Olustee 1-4 700 9

Olustee Public Schools 606 East 6th St

Olustee 26 700 9

USPS 104 E. 4th Olustee 1-4 700 9 Source: Workforce Improvement Board, Ok Dept. of Commerce


Page 82

Appendix 2.10: Tribal Jurisdiction Map


Page 83

Appendix 2.11: Environmental and Development Concerns The environmental features and constraints were identified using secondary source information from the following: United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Oklahoma Geological Survey, Oklahoma Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Oklahoma Department for Environmental Quality (ODEQ), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), United States Geological Survey (USGS), Oklahoma University Geographic Information System (GIS) and other state and local agencies Streams are natural corridors that provide habitat for fish, insects, wildlife and recreational benefits to people such as hunting, fishing, boating, bird watching, as well as, aesthetic benefits. Streams also provide drinking water for wild animals, livestock and people. There are two (2) major rivers in the county, supplied by numerous streams; however, following years of extreme drought, many of these steams are dry. As of the origin of this plan, none are on the “watch list” of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and none are designated as scenic waterways. State and federal agencies classify plants and animals as threatened or endangered when their numbers are low or declining due to direct destruction (from development or pollution, for example) or loss or degradation of suitable habitat. The presence of a threatened or endangered species in an area is an indicator of a better or good quality environment. However, there is no state or federally listed endangered species specific to Jackson County. The Special Flood Hazard Area is an area designated width along a stream or river with a 1% chance of flooding annually. These areas are protected to prevent any increase in the risks or severity of possible future floods and to maintain their natural and ecological benefits. The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is a list of properties determined significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture, by virtue of design or architectural criteria, association with historical persons and events, and/or value for historic or prehistoric information. Under state and federal law, NRHP listed and NRHP eligible properties are afforded equal protection from impact. NRHP properties are designated to help state and local governments, Federal agencies, and others identify important historic and archaeological resources, to ensure their protection, either through preservation, or minimization and mitigation of impact.


Page 84

Appendix 2.12: Environmental Features Table DESCRIPTION LOCATION

Jackson County Courthouse Altus

Fullerton Dam Olustee

Red Bed Plains Jackson

Gypsum Hills Jackson

Washita Mountains Jackson

W.C. Baker House Altus

Frazer Cemetery Altus

Elmer and Lela Garnett House Altus

Washita Falls Altus

Northwestern Railroad Passenger Depot Altus

Perryman Ranch Headquarters Duke

Cross Ranch Headquarters Olustee

Olustee Public Library Olustee

Olustee Park Olustee

Source: Oklahoma Historical Society

Appendix 2.13: Jackson County Collision Total, 2012-2016

FAT

INCAP INJ

NON INCAP

INJ

POSSIBLE INJURY

PROPERTY DAMAGE

TOTAL

Collisions 13 56 185 299 1,401 1,965

Persons 15 74 260 440 789


Appendix 2.14: Jackson County Collisions by Type of Collisions, 2012 – 2016

TYPE OF COLLISION TOTAL

FAT INJ PD TOT PCT Rear-End (front-to-rear) 0 478 668 7/01 24.6

Head-On (front-to-front) 3 4 5 12 0.6

Right Angle (front-to-side) 1 108 29 318 16.3

Angle Turning 1 64 172 237 12.1


Page 85

TYPE OF COLLISION TOTAL

FAT INJ PD TOT PCT Sideswipe Same Direction 0 9 73 82 4.2

Sideswipe Other Direction 1 2 12 15 0.8

Fixed Object 3 95 182 280 14.3

Pedestrian 0 12 3 15 0.8

Pedal Cycle 2 8 3 13 0.7

Animal 0 8 79 87 4.5

Vehicle – Train 0 0 1 1 0.1

Overturn/Rollover 1 55 47 103 5.3

Other Single Vehicle Crash 11 25 36 1.8

Other 1 17 245 263 13.5

Total 13 54 1,401 1,954 100

PCT 0.7 27.6 71.7 100


Appendix 2.15: Jackson County Vehicle by Vehicle Type, 2012 – 2016

VEHICLE TYPE TOTAL

FAT INJ PD TOT PCT Passenger Vehicle-2 Door 1 46 196 243 7.1

Passenger Vehicle-4 Door 5 250 1,057 1,312 38.1

Pickup Truck 4 147 826 977 28.4

Single Unit Truck (2 axles) 0 2 11 13 0.4

Single Unit Truck (3 or more axels)

0 0 5 5 0.1

School bus 0 0 5 5 0.1

Truck/Trailer 0 0 16 16 0.5

Truck-Tractor (bobtail) 0 0 9 9 0.3

Truck-Tractor/Semi-Trailer 0 3 48 51 1.5

Truck-Tractor Double 0 1 1 2 0.1

Motorcycle 0 28 8 36 0.9

Bus/Large Van (9-15 seats) 1 3 4 0.1


Page 86

VEHICLE TYPE TOTAL

FAT INJ PD TOT PCT Bus (16+ seats) 3 3 0.1

Motorcycle 25 9 34 1.0

Motor Scooter/Moped 1 1

Motor Home 3 3 0.1

Farm Machinery 1 5 6 0.2

ATV 0 1 0 1 0

Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV) 90 422 512 14.9

Passenger Van 1 16 67 84 2.4

Truck More Than 10,000 lbs. 1 9 10 0.3

Van (10,000 lbs. or less) 9 40 49 1.4

Other 1 103 104 3.0

Total 14 644 3,228 3,886 100

PCT 0.3 17.2 82.4 100



Page 87

Appendix 2.16: Jackson County Collision Locations, 2012-2016 HIGHWAY COLLISIONS CITY STREET COLLISIONS COUNTY ROAD COLLISIONS TOTAL COLLISIONS

Year FAT INJ PD TOT FAT INJ PD TOT FAT INJ PD TOT FAT INJ PD TOT

2012 2 78 138 218 36 130 166 16 22 38 2 130 290 422

2013 1 64 142 207 1 35 130 166 18 25 43 2 117 297 416

2014 3 60 152 215 31 129 160 19 17 36 3 110 298 411

2015 2 60 144 205 1 33 123 157 1 14 28 43 4 107 294 405

2016 0 42 109 151 25 93 118 2 9 20 31 2 76 222 300

Total 8 304 684 996 2 160 605 767 3 76 112 191 13 540 1,401 1,954


Appendix 2.17: Jackson County Collision by Driver Condition, 2012 – 2016

Unsafe/

Unlawful

Apparently Normal

Alcohol Involved Sleep Suspected

Drug Use Indicated

Unknown Condition

Total

Ability Impaired

Odor Detected

Fat Inj * PD Fat Inj *

PD Fat Inj *

PD Fat Inj PD Fat Inj PD Fat Inj PD Fat Inj PD Total Pcnt

Failed to Yield 3 1 1 4 1 5 0.2

Failed to Stop 2 87 220 2 1 1 1 8 11 2 97 234 333 10.1

Failed to Signal

45 69 2 1 1 6 5 55 74 129 3.9

Improper Turn 17 63 1 1 1 7 19 71 90 2.7

Improper Start 1 9 1 2 9 11 0.3


Page 88

Unsafe/

Unlawful

Apparently Normal


Drug Use Indicated

Unknown Condition

Total

Ability Impaired

Odor Detected


PD Fat Inj *


Improper Stop

4 6 1 5 6 11 0.3

Improper Backing

106 1 2 1 1 9 1 119 120 3.6

Improper Parking

1 1 9 1 10 11 0.3

Improper Passing

1 22 2 1 24 25 0.8

Improper Lane Change

5 30 1 2 5 33 38 1.2

Left of Center

1 10 1 1 3 1 2 13 16 0.5

Following Too Close

30 70 2 6 32 76 108 3.3

Unsafe Speed

2 77 116 1 1 2 1 1 5 10 2 83 131 216 6.5

DWI 1 1 1 13 28 8 4 5 11 1 1 27 45 73 2.2

Inattention 1 102 270 2 1 1 2 12 17 1 1 9 24 3 127 313 443 13.4

Negligent Driving

2 12 1 3 3 15 18 0.5

Defective Veh.

11 17 1 11 18 29 0.9

No Improper Action

6 373 943 1 1 11 71 7 384 1015

1406 42.6

Other 1 32 89 1 1 2 3 11 77 4 44 169 217 6.6


Page 89

Unsafe/

Unlawful

Apparently Normal


Drug Use Indicated

Unknown Condition

Total

Ability Impaired

Odor Detected


PD Fat Inj *


Total 12 793 2055

1 19 35 1 11 12 15 20

8 14 6 57 240

20 903 2376

3299 100

Percent 0.4 24.0

62.3 0.6 1.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

0.2 0.4 0.2 1.7 7.3 0.6

27.4 72.0

100



Page 90

Appendix 2.18: Two Lane Highways Without Paved Shoulders


Page 91

Appendix 2.19: Steep Hills and Sharp Curves


Page 92

Appendix 2.20: Jackson County Traffic Count Data and Map, 2014 Existing traffic conditions were evaluated to provide an overall snapshot of the demand on the roadway system and its current ability to meet that demand. Traffic counts for the SA were obtained from ODOT. Traffic count data for 2014 and the Map illustrating the traffic count location are shown below.


Page 93

Appendix 2.21: Functional Classification and Road Systems Functional classification is the grouping of roads, streets and highways into integrated systems ranked by their importance to the general welfare, motorist and land use structure. It is used to define the role that any particular road should play in providing mobility for through movements and access adjoining land. This grouping acknowledges that roads have different levels of importance and provides a basis for comparing roads fairly.

• Functional classification can be used for, but is not limited to, the following purposes:

• Provide a framework for highways serving mobility and connecting regions and cities within a state.

• Provide a basis for assigning jurisdictional responsibility according to the overall importance of a road.

• Provide a basis for development of minimum design standards according to function.

• Provide a basis for evaluating present and future needs. • Provide a basis for allocation of limited financial resources.

Historically, one of the most important uses of functional classification of streets has been to identify streets and roads that are eligible for federal funds. The original federal aid primary, federal aid secondary, federal aid urban and national interstate systems all relied on functional classification to select eligible routes. In 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) eliminated the primary, secondary and urban federal aid systems and created the National Highway System (NHS). ISTEA continued the requirement that a street, road or highway had to be classified higher than a “local” in urban areas and higher than a “local” and “minor collector” in rural areas before federal funds could be spent on it. The selection of routes eligible for NHS funding was also based on functional criteria. While eligibility for federal funding continues to be an important use for functional classification, it has also become an effective management tool in other areas of transportation planning. Streets are grouped into functional classes according to the character of service they are intended to provide. Oklahoma's Functional Classification system undergoes a comprehensive review after each decennial US Census. The functional classification of streets includes the following functional classes: Interstate, Freeway, Rural Principal Arterial, Rural Minor Arterial, Rural Major Collector and Rural Minor Collector. Rural Principal Arterial - A rural principal arterial road includes the following service characteristics:

• Traffic movements with trip length and density suitable for substantial statewide travel.

• Traffic movements between urban areas with populations over 25,000.


Page 94

• Traffic movements at high speeds. • Divided four-lane roads. • Desired LOS C.

Rural Minor Arterial - A rural minor arterial road includes the following service characteristics:

• Traffic movements with trip length and density suitable for integrated interstate or inter-county service.

• Traffic movements between urban areas or other traffic generators with populations less than 25,000.

• Traffic movements at high speeds. • Undivided four-lane roads. • Striped for one or two lanes in each direction with auxiliary lanes at

intersections as required by traffic volumes. • Desired LOS C.

Rural Major Collector - A rural major collector road includes the following service characteristics:

• Traffic movements with trip length and density suitable for inter-county service.

• Traffic movements between traffic generators, between traffic generators, larger cities and between traffic generators and routes of a higher classification.

• Traffic movements subject to a low level of side friction. • Development may front directly on the road. • Controlled intersection spacing of 2 miles or greater. • Striped for one lane in each direction with a continuous left turn lane. • Desired LOS C.

Rural Minor Collector - A rural minor collector road includes the following service characteristics:

• Traffic movements between local roads and collector roads. • Traffic movements between smaller communities and developed areas. • Traffic movements between locally important traffic generators within

their remote regions. • Two-lane undivided roads with intersections at grade and designed to

take a minimum interference of traffic from driveways appropriate to a rural setting.

• Striped for one lane in each direction. • Desired LOS B.

Rural Local Road - A rural local road includes the following service characteristics:


Page 95

• Two-lane undivided roads with intersections at grade. • Traffic movements between collectors and adjacent lands. • Traffic movements involving relatively short distances. • Desired LOS A.

Level of Service Street Capacity: The measure of a street’s ability to accommodate the traffic volume along the street. Level of Service (LOS): A phrase representative of several factors, including speed, travel time, traffic interruptions and operating cost of a traffic facility (roadway), used to measure the quality of the facility. Level of Service Ranges from LOS A: Indicates good operating conditions with little or no delay, to LOS F, which indicates extreme congestion and long vehicle delays. The following is a list of the various LOS with abbreviated definitions from the Highway Capacity Manual:

• LOS A: Describes a condition with low traffic volumes with little or no delays. There is little or no restriction in maneuverability due to the presence of other vehicles. Drivers can maintain their desired speeds and can proceed through signals without having to wait unnecessarily. Operating capacity can be measured as less than thirty percent (30%) of capacity.

• LOS B: Describes a condition with stable traffic flow with a high degree of

choice to select speed and operating conditions, but with some influence from other drivers. Operating capacity can be measured as less than fifty percent (50%) of capacity.

• LOS C: Describes the beginning of the range of flow in which the

operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic stream. LOS C is normally utilized as a measure of “average conditions” for design of facilities in suburban and urban locations. Operating capacity can be measured as less than sixty-nine percent (69%) of capacity.

• LOS D: Describes high density flow in which speed and freedom to

maneuver is severely restricted even though flow remains stable. LOS D is considered acceptable during short periods of time and is often used in large urban areas. Operating capacity can be measured as less than seventy percent (70%) to ninety percent (90%) of capacity.


Page 96

• LOS E: Describes operating conditions at or near capacity. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns. Operating capacity can be measured as between ninety percent (90%) to ninety-nine percent (99%) of capacity.

• LOS F: Is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists

whenever the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount that can be served. LOS F is characterized by demand volumes greater than the roadway capacity. Under these conditions, motorists seek other routes in order to bypass congestion, thus impacting adjacent streets. Operating capacity can be measured above one hundred percent (100%) of capacity.

Future increases in traffic volume can be traced to population growth and land use development patterns. Capacity and LOS can also be diminished by increasing the number of access points and median cuts on the road network.


Page 97

Appendix 2.22: Jackson County Functional Classification Map


Page 98

Appendix 2.23: Structurally Deficient and Functionally Obsolete Bridges


Page 99

Appendix 2.24: Jackson County On- System Bridges with Sufficiency Rate

FACILITY LOCATION SUFFICIENCY

RATE YEAR BUILT

ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

US 283 2.0 MI N Texas S/L -1 1901 -1 2010

SH 34 2.1 MI N JCT US 62 95.7 1936 420 2015

SH 34 2.8 MI N JCT US 62 95.9 1936 420 2015

US 62 14.4 MI E JCT US 283 70.9 1936 5000 2015

SH 34 1.2 MI N JCT US 62 98.8 1936 420 2015

US 62 12.3 MI E JCT US 283 81.9 1937 5000 2015

SH 5 1.3 MI NW JCT SH 6 83.8 1939 190 2015

US 62 0.6 E. SH 6 -1 1901 -1 -1

SH 5 1.8 MI E JCT US 283 92.2 1953 700 2015

SH 5 2.6 MI E OF JCT US 283 96.2 1953 700 2015

SH 5 0.8 MI NW JCT SH 6 90.2 1955 190 2015

SH 5 4.4 MI NW JCT SH 6 86.8 1939 190 2015

SH 5 6.2 MI NW JCT SH 6 80.5 1939 190 2015

US 62 4.2 MI E JCT SH 34 73.2 1939 2200 2015

SH 5 5.1 MI NW JCT SH 6 77.2 1939 190 2015

SH 6 0.7 NE JCT SH 5 81.1 1945 690 2015

US 62 5.1 MI E JCT US 283 80.4 1930 5400 2015

US 62 6.5 MI E JCT US 283 70.2 1930 5400 2015

SH 6 2.6 NE JCT SH 34 -1 1901 -1 -1

US 62 4.7 MI E JCT US 283 85.8 1930 5400 2015

US 283 0.1 MI N JCT SH 19 95.7 1999 3100 2015

SH 6 5.7 MI NE OF Texas S/L

92.9 2014 470 2015

SH 6 14.2 NE JCT SH 34 97.2 2014 1500 2015

US 283 6.9 MI N Texas S/L 89.9 1932 2100 2015

US 283 3.9 MI N Texas S/L 91.6 1932 1700 2015

US 283 3.2 MI S JCT SH 19 84.9 1932 6200 2015

US 283 7.3 MI N Texas S/L 92.1 1932 2100 2015

US 283 2.0 MI N Texas S/L 74.1 1932 1700 2015

US 62 SD Park Ln. Shopping Ctr. 89.6 1933 50 2015

SH 6 0.8 MI SW JCT SH 34 96.3 1933 690 2015

SH 6 2.6 MI NE JCT SH 34 72 1933 930 2015

US 62 3.4 MI E JCT US 283 89.1 1933 5900 2015

SH 5 0.9 MI NW JCT SH 6 87.8 1955 190 2015


Page 100

FACILITY LOCATION SUFFICIENCY

RATE YEAR BUILT

ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

SH 5 7.8 MI NW JCT SH 6 98.2 1956 190 2015

SH 19 8.9 MI E JCT US 283 97.7 1957 390 2015

SH 34 5.1 MI N JCT SH 6 80.6 1961 550 2015

SH 34 9.4 MI N JCT SH 6 92.8 1961 610 2015

SH 34 1.4 MI N JCT SH 6 93.9 1963 550 2015

US 62 2.6 MI W Tillman C/L 84.9 1968 4200 2015

US 62 0.8 MI W Tillman C/ 84.9 1968 4200 2015

SH 6 1.2 MI NE JCT SH 34 87.5 1972 930 2015

US 62 2.2 MI E SH 6 87.8 1973 3900 2015

US 62 2.1 MI E SH 6 87 1973 1950 2015

US 62 0.6 MI E SH 6 70 1973 1950 2014

US 62 3.7 MI E OF Harmon C/L

77.9 1975 2400 2015

US 62 0.8 MI E JCT SH 34 92 1979 2200 2015

US 62 6.2 MI E JCT SH 34 79 1979 2200 2015

US 62 2.1 MI. E. SH 6 98 1983 2100 2015

US 62 0.6 MI E SH 6 100 1983 2100 2015

US 62 Jackson/Tillman C/L 98 1991 2100 2015

US 283 3.0 MI S JCT SH 19 84.9 1999 6200 2015

SH 19 Jackson/Kiowa C/L 77.5 1956 390 2015

US 62 Jackson/Tillman C/L 98 1968 2350 2015

SH 5 2.3 MI N & W JCT SH 6 67.7 1939 190 2015

US 283 Oklahoma-Texas S/L 93.3 1983 1500 2015

SH 6 5.7 MI NE Texas S/L 55.2 1948 470 2012

SH 6 8.8 MI NE JCT SH 34 54.9 1933 1500 2011

US 283 2 MI S JCT SH 19 Blair 97 1932 5920 1999

US 283 .1 MI N JCT SH 19 92.1 1932 3810 1999

US 283 3 MI S JCT SH 19 Blair 97 1932 5920 1999

SH 6 Oklahoma-Texas S/L 2 1931 670 1999

US 283 2.6 MI S JCT US62 94 1932 2500 1999

SH 5 2.3 NW OF SH 6 JCT -1 1901 -1 -1

SH 6 Oklahoma-Texas S/L 92.7 1993 500 2015 Source: ODOT


Page 101

Appendix 2.25: Jackson County Off- System Bridges

LOCATION SUFFICIENCY YEAR BUILT

ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

0.5 W 2.0 S Eldorado 26.9 1950 100 1999 County

4 S 0.6 MI E Duke 34 1940 70 2002 County

3.5 N 2.8 W SH 34 & US 62 97 1993 60 1999 County

3.5 W 1.6 N Eldorado 16.4 1920 50 1999 County

3.0 W 1.5 S Duke 97 1994 60 1999 County

8 W 3.4 MI S Altus 19.2 1930 100 1999 County

5 S 4.6 MI E OF Altus 40.9 1938 100 2011 County

6 E 6.4 MI S OF Altus 87.5 1941 400 2014 County

4 S 0.5 MI E Duke 39.4 1940 70 2002 County

5S 4.6E OF Altus 100 2013 100 2015 County

2 W 1.9 MI S OF Altus 88.1 1937 200 2015 County



4.6 MI N OF Friendship 95.9 1938 400 2015 County

.2 MI S of Friendship 99.8 1938 600 2015 County



6E 6.9S OF Altus 99.9 2016 400 2015 County

6E 6.4S OF Altus 99.9 2016 400 2015 County


1.5 S 1.3 W Headrick 80.1 1939 50 2015 County

4.6 MI W OF Elmer 92.1 1938 100 2015 County

7.0 W 0.9 S Martha 91.1 1939 50 2015 County

3.2 N 6.1 W Olustee 93.1 1938 70 2015 County


Page 102


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

.5 MI E OF Elmer 92.1 1936 200 2015 County

6 E .8 MI S OF Altus 34.2 1990 400 1999 County

0.5 W 3.8 S Eldorado 83 1950 100 2006 County

2.0 N 2.9 W OF Altus 32 1920 50 2004 County

6.0 E 1.7 N Eldorado 95 1920 50 2015 County

3 W 4.1 MI S Martha 86.5 1930 75 2015 County

4.2 N 1.5 E Eldorado 93.9 1930 70 2015 County

1.5 S 7.4 E Eldorado 95 1930 50 2015 County

.1 MI S OF Greer C/L 99.5 1932 4200 2015 County


4 S 2.1 MI E Duke 93.1 1938 70 2015 County

0.5 W 1.2 N Elmer 92.1 1938 100 2015 County

3 E 2.8 MI S OF Altus 97 1936 100 2015 County

3 E 4.9 MI S OF Altus 97 1936 100 2015 County


2 MI W OF Martha 32.4 1920 100 2007 County

3.0 W 1.5 S Duke 100 1994 60 2015 County

8.0 W & 3.4 S OF Altus 100 1997 100 2015 County

3.5 W & 1.6 N. Eldorado 100 2001 100 2015 County

1.0 W 2.5 N Elmer 92.1 1940 200 2015 County

0.5 S 0.8 E Blair 35.9 1940 100 2015 County

.1 MI N Hess 93.1 1940 100 2015 County

6.0 E & 0.8 S OF Altus 99.3 2000 2255 2015 County

4.0 S & 0.5E OF Duke 99.9 2001 250 2015 County

4.0S & 0.6E OF Duke 99.9 2001 250 2015 County


Page 103


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

1.5 E 2.6 S Eldorado 93.1 1940 100 2015 County

2N 2.9W OF Altus 100 2006 50 2015 County

8W .8S US62/US283 Altus 100 2005 100 2015 County

6 E .4 MI S OF Altus 86.9 1960 400 2015 County


5 S 0.5 MI W OF Altus 98 1965 100 2015 County

5.1 MI W OF Elmer 100 1970 100 2015 County

2 MI W OF Elmer 72.7 1970 100 2015 County

6 E 3.1 MI S OF Altus 99.9 1991 400 2015 County

9.1 MI E OF Eldorado 100 1992 100 2015 County

3.5 N, 2.8 W SH34 & US62 100 1993 60 2015 County

1.4 S .4 W Eldorado 100 1988 100 2015 County

2 S & 1.5 W OF 283 & 5 100 1990 200 2015 County

4.0 S & 2.0 E OF Blair 98.6 1990 1200 2015 County


3.5 MI E Duke 93.1 1941 100 2015 County

4.5 S 0.8 E Eldorado 91.1 1941 50 2015 County

4.5 W 3.0 S OF Elmer 92.1 1942 60 2015 County

3.1 MILES W Blair 96.9 1950 200 2015 County

0.2 MI W OF Blair 51.9 1950 200 2015 County

4.5 W 1.8 S OF Elmer 85.7 1950 100 2015 County

283 & 62 1.0 S & 5.7 E 100 2000 100 2015 County

1.5S & 0.5E OF Eldorado 84.3 1997 100 2015 County

0.5 W 2.0 S Eldorado 97 1996 100 2015 County

0.5N & 2S OF Eldorado 96.4 1996 100 2015 County


Page 104


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

2.9 MI W OF Blair 99.9 1982 200 2015 County

3 N 1 MI W Olustee 98 1982 100 2015 County

3 W .1 MI S OF Blair 100 1983 70 2015 County

2.2 MI N Martha 100 1984 70 2015 County

3.4N OF Elmer 99.9 1984 200 2015 County

1.8 MI North Hess 100 1985 100 2015 County

6.7 N 1.5 E Eldorado 100 1986 70 2015 County

1.6 MI E OF Martha 99.9 1980 300 2015 County

1 MI E OF Martha 99.9 1980 300 2015 County

12 S 1.1 MI E Altus 100 1987 70 2015 County

12 S 1.2 MI E Altus 97 1940 70 2015 County

3 E 4.1 MI S Altus 100 1982 100 2015 County

1.0 E 0.5 S OF Warren 52.6 1950 60 2002 County

1.8 N 1. E OF Altus 23.6 1941 3000 1999 Municipal

7.2 E 1. N OF Altus 26.8 1971 100 1999 County

4.7 E 3. N OF Altus 34 1940 24 1999 County

1. N 11.8 W Olustee 17.2 1913 100 1999 County

E1700N2100007 39 1930 50 1999 County

E1710N2110002 19 1915 100 1999 County

3. E 2.6 S OF Duke 27.4 1920 50 1999 County

N1970E1740005 18.8 1920 40 1999 County

N1970E1770005 35.9 1935 100 1999 County

5. E 2.9 N OF Altus 33.9 1939 50 2010 County


62 & 6 4.E & 1.1 S 33.9 1940 100 2010 County


Page 105


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

3.7 S 9.5 E Eldorado 32.9 1940 50 2010 County


.4 N 11.8 W Olustee 24.2 1920 50 2010 County

2. N .8 W OF Olustee 32.9 1930 50 2010 County

3.2 S &1.5 W Olustee 32.9 1930 40 2010 County

1.8 S 6.3 E OF Blair 33.9 1930 50 2010 County

1.6 S 3.2 W OF Duke 32.9 1930 50 2010 County

5.5 N 2. W OF Altus 49.8 1938 60 2012 County

283 & 5 5.5 E 1.7 S 33 1940 30 2010 County


6. N 5.9 E OF Altus 32.9 1940 50 2010 County

6.5 MI E OF Ozark 26.9 1929 40 2008 County

283 &5 4.5 E2.6 S 40 1938 50 2015 County


2.6 S .7 E Eldorado 24.3 1920 40 2008 County

4.1 S. 2 E JCT. 283 62 32.9 1950 50 2012 County

8.3 W .9 S Olustee 19.2 1930 40 2010 County

1.0 E 2.6 N OF Altus 48.2 1940 400 1999 County

E1710N2030002 32.9 1939 100 1999 County

E1610N1900009 97 1950 50 1999 County

E1670N2090009 38.9 1940 100 1999 County

5.8 E 2. S Altus 70.3 1938 50 2004 County


5 N 1 MI E OF Altus 25.5 1940 400 2002 County

1.0 N 6.8 W OF Altus 21.4 1930 100 1999 County


Page 106


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

2.4 N 1.5 W OF Blair 39 1940 40 1999 County

E1670N2070001 35.9 1940 100 1999 County

N2110E1700008 19.9 1940 30 1999 County

2.0 W 1.7 N OF Blaine 19.4 1940 30 1999 County


2.0 S 1.3 E Friendship 50 1994 50 1999 County

N2080E1680009 33.9 1940 100 1999 County

5 N 2.7 MI E OF Altus 18 1940 800 1999 County


N2010E1650006 33.9 1941 100 1999 County

N1950E1840009 34.9 1920 100 1999 County

5E 3.5N OF US 62 & US 283 87.2 2009 50 2015 County

4W, 2S OF US 62 & US 283 97 2009 50 2015 County

7E 3.1N OF JCT US62&283 96.4 2009 50 2015 County

8.3W, .9S OF Olustee 100 2011 40 2015 County

283 & 62 4.0 E 5.1 S 93.1 1937 50 2015 County

1.9 N 3.8 W OF Olustee 93.1 1937 50 2015 County

3.7S 1.9W OF Duke 93.1 1937 50 2015 County

1.0 W 3.2. S Blair 91.1 1938 30 2015 County

5W 2.1S OF SH34/US62 97 2012 100 2015 County

5.5N 2W OF Altus 100 2014 60 2015 County

1.3W .7S OF Duke 100 2016 50 2015 County

Olustee 2S & 2.2 W 93.1 1939 50 2015 County

7.0 M S Olustee 92.1 1939 40 2015 County



Page 107


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

7.0 M S 0.1 E Olustee 93.1 1939 40 2015 County

3. N 1.9 W OF Altus 92.1 1939 100 2015 County

283 & 61 1.0 S & 10.7 E 93.1 1939 60 2015 County

.5 S 1. W OF Blair 35.9 1939 50 2015 County



.9 S 8.3 W Olustee 92.1 1939 40 2015 County

.4 N 3. W OF Blair 91.1 1939 50 2015 County

4.1 N 1. W OF ELM 93.1 1939 50 2015 County

4.3N 3E US62/283 Altus 96 2000 100 2015 County

7S 0.2E OF US-62/US-283 100 2009 50 2015 County

2.0 W. OF Martha 99.9 2009 100 2015 County

7W & 2.2N OF US 62 100 2009 30 2015 County

.5W, 3.8S Eldorado 97 2008 100 2015 County

3.9 S 1.4 E OF Duke 93.1 1939 50 2015 County

6.0 E 1.4 N OF Blair 32.1 1940 24 2014 County




283 & 5 5.0 E & 4.2 S 93.1 1938 30 2015 County

Olustee 8.0 S & 2.4 W 93.1 1938 50 2015 County

1.1 S 1. W OF Blair 66.1 1939 30 2015 County

2.9 N 2. W OF Altus 93.1 1939 100 2015 County

2. W 1.7 N OF Altus 93.1 1939 60 2015 County

.6 N 5. W OF Altus 93.1 1939 60 2015 County


Page 108


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

283 & 62 7.0 E & 2.6 S 93.1 1939 50 2015 County

1.1W&3.M S Duke 93.1 1939 50 2015 County

2.0 S 9.9 W OF Martha 93.1 1938 40 2015 County

7.2 W .9 S Olustee 93.1 1938 40 2015 County

1.0 N 2.8 W OF Altus 92 1938 50 2015 County

E1750N2040007 91.1 1938 100 2015 County

1.2 N 5.6 E OF Blair 93.1 1938 30 2015 County

1.5 W & 9.4 S Olustee 93.1 1936 40 2015 County

0.5 W 1.1 N Headrick 96 1937 50 2015 County

283&62 3.0 S &2.9 W 24.9 1913 25 2015 County

.4 S 2.4 W Eldorado 92.1 1937 60 2015 County

Olustee 2 N & 4.8 W 93.1 1937 50 2015 County

1.0 S & 1.1 W. OF Duke 29.9 1938 50 2015 County

1.3 W & 0.7 S OF Duke 26.9 1938 50 2014 County

E1680N2060009 33.9 1950 50 1999 County

1.5 W 1.2 N OF Blair 68 1940 50 2004 County

2.8 S & 2.4 M E Duke 28.4 1930 100 2004 County

N2030E1650001 39.6 1999 500 2010 County

5.7 E 2. S Altus 32.9 1989 50 2002 County

.9 S 7. W OF Olustee 24.5 1920 24 2004 County

.7 N .9 E Humphreys 33.9 1985 50 2002 County

4.0 E 2.8 N OF Altus 49.3 1946 100 1999 County

1.6 N 3.6 W OF Duke 33.9 1940 100 1999 County

E1670N2100005 35.9 1950 100 1999 County

1.8 S & 1.1E Duke 81.1 1920 100 2015 County


Page 109


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

2. S 5.8 W OF Olustee 73.5 1930 50 2015 County

3.S & 2.8 W. OF Olustee 32.9 1930 40 2014 County

1.8S&.6E Duke 39.9 1930 100 2015 County

.9 S .5 E OF Olustee 95 1930 50 2015 County

N1970E1770002 48.5 1935 40 2015 County

.6 S 5.9 E OF Duke 93.1 1938 24 2015 County


.8 S .8 W OF Blair 93.1 1938 50 2015 County

3.0 N 1.2 E OF Altus 64.5 1938 100 2015 County

1. S 1.3 E Friendship 93.1 1938 40 2015 County

2.6 E 2. N OF Ozark 93.1 1938 40 2015 County

3.7 E 1. S Friendship 93.1 1938 40 2015 County

1.5 N 1.4 W Headrick 92.1 1938 40 2015 County

1.5 N .1 E Headrick 92.1 1938 50 2015 County

.3 E 1.5 N Headrick 92.1 1938 50 2015 County

283 & 62 1.0E & 2.9S 92.1 1938 40 2015 County

.4 S 5.6 E Eldorado 93.1 1938 50 2015 County

1.5W &11.3 S Olustee 87.8 1938 40 2015 County

3.7W&1S Duke 82.1 1938 50 2015 County

3. E .3 N OF Duke 91.1 1938 40 2015 County

.6 S 4. E OF Duke 65.1 1938 50 2015 County

5 E & 7.5 S OF 283 & 19 64.5 1938 50 2015 County

.5 N .6 W OF Duke 93.1 1938 50 2015 County


283 & 5 6.0E &0.9S 92.1 1938 30 2015 County


Page 110


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

1.5W &7.6 S Olustee 61.2 1936 40 2015 County

1.1 N 4.5 W Olustee 97 1936 50 2015 County

7. S & 1/4 E OF Altus 35.9 1940 50 2008 County


7E 3.1N OF JCT US62/US283 36.9 1950 50 2007 County

7.0 W 2.2 N OF Altus 19.8 1940 30 2008 County


0.5 E & 1.0 N OF Duke 100 1993 50 2015 County

283 & 62 2.0 S &3.5 E 66.5 1940 50 2015 County



283 & 62 1.0 S & 10.6 E 92.1 1940 60 2015 County

1.0 W 1.6 S OF Blaine 58.5 1940 30 2015 County

4.3 N .8 W OF Olustee 31.9 1940 50 2014 County

3.0 E 2.5 N Friendship 36.9 1940 60 2015 County

3.4 S 9.E OF Blair 36.9 1940 50 2015 County

5.9 MI N OF Altus 93.1 1940 80 2015 County


283 & 5 6.5 E 0.9 N 56.5 1940 30 2015 County


283 & 5 4.5E &1.8 S 84.8 1991 50 2015 County

1.8 S .4 W OF Blair 68.3 1940 25 2015 County

.1 W .8 S OF Blair 41 1940 50 2015 County

283 &62 2.0 S & 0.5E 52.2 1940 60 2015 County

7.0 E 0.6 N OF Altus 80 1940 50 2015 County


Page 111


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

62&6 2E 71.2S 90.1 1940 24 2015 County

3.2 N .8 W OF Olustee 92.1 1940 50 2015 County

1.6 N `.8 W OF Olustee 93.1 1940 50 2015 County

2.0 N 0.5 E Blair 54.4 1940 50 2015 County


1.5 S 0.9 OF Blair 64.5 1940 100 2015 County

3.0 E & 2.6 S OF Duke 100 2002 50 2015 County

5.0 N & 2.7 E OF Altus 99.8 2001 800 2015 County

2.0W & 1.7S OF Blair 100 2001 50 2015 County

62 & 34 .9 W. 90.1 1940 100 2015 County

283 & 62 7.0 S 1.3 W 65.1 1940 50 2015 County

283 & 62 4.0 S & 0.4 W 49.9 1940 50 2015 County

5.5 M E OF Olustee 74.7 1940 50 2015 County

283 & 5 2.0 N 1.1E 68.3 1940 50 2015 County

283 % 1.0 N 2.2 E 93.1 1940 50 2015 County

5.7E & 2.0S OF Altus 100 2003 100 2015 County

5.0N & 1.0E OF Altus 99.8 2002 800 2015 County

1.3E OF Friendship 97 2002 50 2015 County

6.5E US283 1 NE Humphreys

100 2004 50 2015 County

8.0E OF Blair, 0.5S SH-19 100 2003 60 2015 County

2.8S 2.4E OF JCT US62/SH3 100 2005 100 2015 County

1.5W 1.2N OF Blair 96 2005 50 2015 County

.9 S AND 7 W OF Olustee 91 2003 24 2015 County

283 &62 4.0S &2.2E 77.6 1940 50 2015 County


Page 112


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

283 & 5 1.0 N 2.8 E 80.2 1940 50 2015 County

5.6N of SH5 -1 1901 100 2014 County

283 & 5 2.0E 0.1 S 97 1953 50 2015 County

Ordance & .3N Broadway 96.9 1961 200 2015 Municipal

4.0 N & 3.2 E OF Altus 99.9 1992 300 2015 County

7th St. & .7 W Hughes 90.1 1950 100 2015 Municipal

Taylor & 6th St. 97 1997 100 2015 Municipal

3. S 1.1 W OF Ozark 100 1993 50 2015 County

3. S 3.1 E OF Altus 100 1993 60 2015 County

2.0 S 1.3 E Friendship 100 1994 50 2015 County

5.5 W & 1.2 S OF Elmer 94 1930 40 2015 County

.5W of Humphreys -1 1901 100 2014 County

.1S 9.E OF Blair 100 1987 50 2015 County

1.8S&.3E Duke 97 1988 100 2015 County

Olustee2.2S3.5W 100 1988 60 2015 County

1.6E .6N OF Hendrick 100 1989 50 2015 County

1.0N & 0.2W-Friendship 99.8 1990 800 2015 County

62&6 1S &2.3E 100 1990 50 2015 County

1 N 0.8 E OF Blair 54.4 1940 60 2015 County

.5S 1W OF Blair -1 2017 50 2015 County

283 & 62 8.0E & 4.8 S 96 1950 50 2015 County

3.5 S & 1.5 W Olustee 100 1998 100 2015 County

2.4 N 1.5 W OF Blair 97 1996 40 2015 County

6.5E & 3.0S OF Altus 100 1995 50 2015 County

4S &2.9E OF Altus 96.8 1997 50 2015 County


Page 113


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

283 & 62 6.0S &6.7 E 100 1996 50 2015 County

283 &62 4.0E &4.9 S 97 1996 30 2015 County

1.5E, 1.5S OF Humphreys 95.8 1996 30 2015 County

3S & 7E OF Eldorado 88.8 1997 40 2015 County

5W &1N OF Duke 80.2 1997 100 2015 County

Park Ln. & Trail Dr. 100 1998 400 2015 Municipal

3.0 N & 2.7 W OF Altus 100 1998 100 2015 County

1S 1.4W of SH19/US283 JCT -1 1901 50 2015 County

1.8S&2.6E Duke 98 1982 100 2015 County

0.2 MI S Humphreys 100 1983 50 2015 County

.4 N 1. E OF Duke 98 1983 100 2015 County

283&62 1.S &4.0E 97 1984 100 2015 County

5.0 E 2.0 N OF Altus 100 1986 100 2015 County

3.5 S 8.4 E OF Blair 46 1987 40 2015 County

5 N 5.4 MI E OF Altus 96 1987 800 2015 County

2. E 1.2 N OF Altus 39.5 1992 1500 1999 Municipal

Park Ln. & .4 N Falcon 80.9 2014 3050 2015 Municipal

Concord & Gettsyburg 97 2016 100 2015 Municipal

Veterans & .2 N OF US-62 81.3 1940 7750 2015 Municipal

Veterans & .8 S Tamarack Rd.

80.7 2000 1550 2015 Municipal

Tamarack Rd. & Gettysburg 93.3 2000 1050 2015 Municipal

Falcon & .3 E Veterans 77.9 1957 6350 2015 Municipal

Tamarack Rd. & N. Ridge 90.5 1979 1050 2015 Municipal

2.0 E. & 1.2 N. OF Altus 77.1 1941 3000 2014 Municipal


Page 114


ADT TOTAL

ADT YEAR

OWNER

Falcon & .4 E Veterans 77.1 1945 6355 2015 Municipal

Stonehocker & 6th St. 94.5 1997 200 2015 Municipal

Source: ODOT


Page 115

Appendix 2.26: National Highway Freight Network – Oklahoma The NHFN includes the following subsystems of roadways:

• Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS): This is a network of highways identified as the most critical highway portions of the US freight transportation system determined by measurable and objective national data. The network consists of 41,518 centerlines miles, including 37,436 centerline miles of Interstate and 4,082 centerline miles of non-Interstate roads.

• Other Interstate portions not on the PHFS: These highways consist of the remaining portion of Interstate roads not included in the PHFS. These routes provide important continuity and access to freight transportation facilities. These portions amount to an estimated 9,511 centerline miles of Interstate, nationwide, and will fluctuate with additions and deletions to the Interstate Highway System.

• Critical Rural Freight Corridors (CRFCs): These are public roads not in an urbanized area which provide access and connection to the PHFS and the Interstate with other important ports, public transportation facilities, or other intermodal freight facilities.

• Critical Urban Freight Corridors (CUFCs): These are public roads in urbanized areas which provide access and connection to the PHFS and the Interstate with other ports, public transportation facilities, or other intermodal transportation facilities.

Primary Highway Freight System (PHFS) Routes

ROUTE No. START POINT END POINT LENGTH (MILES)

Creek Type I44 U75 4.9

I240 I44 I35 4.61

I244 OK3R I44 3.52

I35 TX/OK Line OK/Ks Line 236.13

I40 TX/OK Line I35 151.76

I40 I35 OK/AR line 177.96

I44 I240 4.68 Miles North of I40 7.92

I44 I35 OK/MO Line 194

U412 OK6P I44 6.4

Subtotal 787.19


Page 116

PHFS Intermodal

Connectors

FACILITY ID FACILITY NAME FACILITY

DESCRIPTION LENGTH (MILES)

OK2L Williams

Pipeline Station

21st St. (33rd W. Avenue to Burlington Northern RR at 23rd

St.) 1.27

OK3R Burlington Northern Railroad

23rd St. (BN Terminal to Southwest Avenue)

SW Avenue (23rd St. to I-244 ramp.) 0.56

OK5P Port of Catoosa SR 266 (Port to US

169) 11.42

OK6P

Johnston's Port 33 (Verdigris

River near Muskogee)

From US 412/NS 414, south 0.25 miles, east 1

mile to Terminal 1.14

Subtotal 14.39

PHFS TOTAL 801.58

Interstate Not on the

PHFS

ROUTE No. START POINT END POINT LENGTH (MILES)

I235 I40 I44 5.14

I240 I35 I40 11.68

I244 S. 21st St. I44 12.24

I44 TX/OK Line I240 114.91

I44 0.35 miles S. of

S66 I35 7.7

I444 I244 S I244 N 2.5

Subtotal 154.15


Page - 117 -

Appendix 3: Future Conditions Appendix 3.1: Jackson County 2040 Population and Employment Projections by TAZ

RVSD. TAZ NO.

2010 POP. 2040 POP.

2040 EMPL.

1 202 215 35

2 314 345 75

3 657 675 65

4 709 725 25

5 644 655 20

6 374 400 35

7 513 515 30

8 523 525 40

9 633 630 50

10 406 415 35

11 90 110 80

12 103 110 25

13 359 375 125

14 38 45 160

15 13 15 45

16 42 59 235

100 147 150 25

101 669 675 35

200 0 0 5

201 97 505 215

202 445 500 50

203 247 300 0

204 485 600 0

205 575 760 0

206 441 750 0

207 396 405 100

208 471 545 135

209 480 500 0

210 492 495 135

211 423 500 100

212 408 475 260

213 392 419 0

214 293 300 165


Page - 118 -

RVSD. TAZ NO.

2010 POP. 2040 POP.

2040 EMPL.

215 320 365 0

216 1603 2000 5550

217 3 15 70

218 707 800 25

219 561 575 65

220 479 525 0

221 504 550 90

222 393 393 0

223 545 545 0

224 342 345 0

225 606 610 45

226 425 435 145

227 5 5 315

228 562 575 0

229 74 75 325

230 437 440 0

231 432 442 0

232 489 500 0

233 0 0 100

234 244 255 100

235 0 0 205

236 53 55 375

237 129 130 370

238 285 285 400

239 593 600 475

240 574 600 95

241 233 245 315

242 444 445 295

243 361 370 145

244 305 320 325

245 415 425 222

246 403 415 15

247 396 400 0

248 119 135 0

249 575 600 0

250 127 135 0

251 622 630 110 Source: SORTPO


Page 119

Appendix 3.2: ODOT 8-year Construction Work Program 2017-2024


Page 120

Appendix 4: Financial Appendix 4.1: Federal Funding Categories

Streets & Highways

Federal Highway Administration Formula Program

• Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (BR) • Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) • Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) • Interstate Maintenance (IM) • National Highway System (NHS) • Surface Transportation Program (STP) (Statewide,

Urbanized Area, Enhancement and Safety)

Federal Highway Administration Discretionary Programs:

• American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA • Demonstration Funds • High Priority Projects (HPP) • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) • Transportation Community Systems Preservation (TCSP) • Other Discretionary Earmarks

Federal Transit Administration Formula Programs

• Sec. 5307 – Urbanized Area Funds (Oklahoma City UZA and Norman UZA)

• Sec. 5310 – Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program • Sec. 5311 – Non-Urbanized Area Formula Program • Sec. 5316 – Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) • Sec. 5317 – New Freedom (NF) • Congestion Mitigation/Air Quality (CMAQ) – Transferred

from FHWA to FTA Federal Transit Administration

Discretionary Programs: • Sec. 5309 – Discretionary Capital Program • Other Discretionary Earmarks

Public Transit Revolving Fund

Railroad Source: FHWA


Page 121

Appendix 4.2: Funding Category Summary State FUNDING ELIGIBILITY

County Equipment Revolving Fund

Industrial, Historic site and Lake Access Funds

Can be used on city streets and county roads.

County Improvements for Roads and Bridges, (CIRB)

Only contract projects let thru ODOT

Federal Federal Bridge Funds Bridge Replacement Funds (BR)

Bridge Rehabilitation (BH)

Preventive Maintenance (PM)

Safety Bridge Inspection

Bridge < 50 sufficiency rating & functionally obsolete or structurally deficient.

Bridge between 50 & 80 sufficiency rating.

Must have a systematic process for project selection.

Mandated by the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA, on bridge length structures.

Surface Transportation Program

Road projects, grade, drain and surface on county major and minor collectors. Funding may provide up to 80 percent of the construction costs. Local governments fund the remaining 20 percent match plus costs for engineering, right of way and utility relocation.

Emergency Relief (ER) Funds Disaster funding.

Emergency Transportation and Revolving Fund (ETR)

The funds are split amongst the eight CEDs. Counties can apply to their CED and borrow any amount of money from the fund.

Circuit Engineering District Revolving fund

County Road & Bridge Improvement Fund (CBR)

County Built, contract projects and maintenance on roads/bridges

Source: ODOT

http://www.occedb.org/funding-sources/bridge-replacement-funds-br

http://www.occedb.org/funding-sources/bridge-replacement-funds-br

http://www.occedb.org/funding-sources/emergency-transportation-and-revolving-fund-etr

http://www.occedb.org/funding-sources/emergency-transportation-and-revolving-fund-etr


Page 122

Appendix 4.3: Apportionment of Statutory Revenues FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15

Circuit Engineering District Revolving Fund

$4,463,612.89 $3,759,042.61 $4,257,973.22 $3606,553.448

Counties for Bridge & Road Improvement

$29,469,291.00 $24,556,139.05 $28,025,910.64 $23,430,017.08

Counties for Roads $233,167,431.04 $224,693,222.81 $252,415,798.31 $254,470,157.23

County Improvement Road and Bridge Revolving Fund

$96,381,44.43 $99,297,039.31 $129,693,227.84 $138,133,545.79

County Road Fund $16,567,078.24 $17,075,040.15 $18,701,249.31 $17,701,249.31

County Road Improvement Revolving Fund

$23,162,249.21 $23,869,001.05 $26,138,425.71 $26,138,425.71

High Priority State Bridge Revolving Fund

$6,3036,200.98 $5,932,688.65 $6,159,069.25 $6,225,331.10

Public Transit Revolving Fund

$3,850,000.00 $3,850,000 $3,850,000 $3,850,000

Railroad Maintenance Fund

$666,387.67 $716,415.44 $837,887.56 $826,792.79

Rebuild Oklahoma Access & Driver Safety Fund

$250,700,000.00 $292,400,000.00 $352,100,000.00 $411,800,000.00

State Hwy. Construction & Maintenance Funds

$2,079,421.18 $3,123,679.15 $7,246,116.42 $4,785,497.76

State Transportation Fund

$208,864,879,28 $204,316,899.57 $213,905,376.86 $214,115,706.14

Source: Oklahoma Tax Commission

Appendix 4.4: Jackson County CIRB Funding FY 2015-2019

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 TOTAL Jackson County

$6,273,247 $482,500 $582,500 $2,857,500 0 $9,195,747

Source: ODOT


Page 123

Appendix 5: Public Participation Appendix 5.1: Jackson County Socio Economic Characteristics

Jackson County

Total Population (2010 Census) 26,446

Average household size 2.51

Average household income $41,560

Median age 34.1

Persons 65 years and over 13.6%

Median selected monthly owner costs with mortgage*

$1,010

Median gross rent* $708

Percent in poverty* 17.0%

Percent with a disability under age 65 years*

11.7%

Percent without health insurance coverage, under 65 years

14.8%

Percent veterans 4.9%

Percent foreign born* 1.6%

Language other than English spoken at home, 5 years and older*

17.2%

Mean travel time to work (min) 14.4

Source: US Census – *2010-2014 ACS


Page 124

Appendix 5.2: Survey


Page 125


Page 126


Page 127


Page 128


Page 129


Page 130


Page 131


Page 132


Page 133

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

AfricanAmerican

Asian AmericanIndian

Caucasion Hispanic Other

Nu

mb

er

Race

Question 15: Jackson County Survey Response


Page 134


Page 135

Appendix 5.3: Public Outreach During the months of March and April 2017 SORTPO participated in Stakeholder meetings in Jackson County (Altus Chamber of Commerce on March 7th, Jackson County Health Coalition, March 8th, 2017, and Altus Air Force Base April 26, 2017. SORTPO staff distributed a copy of the Jackson County 2040 LRTP on August 28, 2017 to the following agencies: Jackson County Commissioners, Altus City Hall, Oklahoma Aeronautics Commission, Oklahoma Agriculture Food & Forestry, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Oklahoma Geological Survey, Oklahoma Department of Transportation, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife, Oklahoma Historical Society, and Oklahoma Water Resources Board. A legal notice advertising SORTPO’s public hearing to adopt the 2040 Jackson County Long Range Transportation Plan was placed in the Altus Times newspaper. The SORTPO Policy Board held a public hearing on September 28, 2017 to receive comments on the 2040 Jackson County LRTP prior to its’ adoption. Amendment #1 The SORPTO Policy Board at their August 22, 2019 established a 30 day public review and comment period (August 26, 2019 – September 24, 2019 for Amendment #1, modifying population and employment thresholds Traffic Analysis Zone maps and Tables. COMMENTS – At their September 26, 2019 meeting the SORTPO Policy Board held a public hearing to receive comment on Amendment #1 no comments were received.


Page 136

Invitation to Stakeholder Meeting

January 5, 2016 Dear, The Southwest Oklahoma Regional Transportation Planning Organization (“SORTPO”) is the regional transportation planning organization for southwest Oklahoma. Within this region are 16 counties, including the eight counties within the South Western Oklahoma Development Authority (SWODA) Council of Government and the eight counties comprising the Association of South Central Oklahoma Government (ASCOG). SORTPO is in the process of developing a regional long-range transportation plan for the sixteen counties. A stakeholder meeting is scheduled to introduce the long-range transportation planning process and to engage you in the early stage of this plan development.

Date: February 9, 2017

Time: 10:00 am Location: Hollis City Hall

208 W. Jones Hollis, Ok 73550

This meeting will present opportunities for you to share your areas of concern as well as to help identify transportation programs to meet the needs of the future. Please share this invitation with your associates, as all are welcome, and the meeting is open to the public. We look forward to seeing you there!

Becky Cockrell Transportation Planner

South Western Oklahoma Development Authority PO Box 569, Building 420 Sooner Drive

Burns Flat, OK 73624 580-562-4882 Ext. 118


Page 137

Public Review and Comments Received (Beginning August 28, 2017- September 26, 2017) Agency Contact Name Comments ODEQ Jon A. Roberts This is in response to your August 28,

2017 request for comments on the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plans for Greer, Harmon, Jackson, Jefferson, and Stephens Counties. DEQ has no specific comments about the individual county plans; however, as you assess environmental risk posed by the projects please refer to DEQ Land Protection GIS data layers available for download athttp://gisdata-deq.opendata.arcgis.com/.

OK State Depart. Of Health

Dennie Christian

Here are some suggestions for unfunded transportation projects for Jackson County. 1. Extend sidewalk on N. Park Ln. to Falcon

Rd. and E. Tamarack Rd. 2. Add sidewalks t Falcon Rd. from N. Main

St. to Veterans Rd. during planned widening and paving of Falcon Rd.

ODOT Lisa Lam Editorial comments.

Retired OSU Alumni

John Sheppard Editorial comments.

http://gisdata-deq.opendata.arcgis.com/

http://gisdata-deq.opendata.arcgis.com/


Page 138

Appendix 6: Recommendations Appendix 6.1: Jackson County Transportation Projects

COUNTY YEAR DESCRIPTION FUNDING

Jackson County 2017 -2021

Develop a clearinghouse for regional data sets, such as pavement management systems and geographic information systems.

SPR/Local


Conduct a freight assessment for the county.

SPR/Local


Develop a system to collect and monitor changes in population, employment, and major employers by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ).

SPR/Local


Develop data collection standards. SPR/Local


Establish procedures that enhance the consultation and coordination of transportation planning with local, regional, state and tribal government representatives.

SPR/Local



SPR/Local


2017 -2021

SH-6: OVER UNNAMED CREEK, 2.6 MILES N.E. OF SH-34 UT FOR 28778(04)

$10,278


2017 -2021


$20,000


2017 -2021

SH-6: OVER UNNAMED CREEK 2.6 MILES N.E. OF SH-34 RW FOR 28778(04)

$34,215


Page 139



2017 -2021

BRIDGE AND APPROACHES (NS-198) OVER UNNAMED CREEK, LOCATED 4.3 MI NORTH AND 0.8 MI WEST OF Olustee. (ENGINEERING)

$45,000


2017 -2021


$45,000


2017 -2021

RECONSTRUCT NAVAJO ROAD (PHASE II) PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING

$100,000

JACKSON BRIDGE REHABILITATION

2017 -2021

SH-6; BRIDGE REHAB OVER GYPSUM CREEK, 1.2 MILES NE OF SH-34 JCT

$250,000


2017 -2021


$400,000

JACKSON RESURFACE

2017 -2021

SH-19 BEGIN AT THE US-283 JCT AND EXTEND EAST 1.60 MILES.

$413,893


2017 -2021

BRIDGE AND APPROACHES (NS-198) OVER UNNAMED CREEK, LOCATED 4.3 MI NORTH AND 0.8 MI WEST OF Olustee.

$437,500


2017 -2021


$437,500


2017 -2021

CO BR: EW-1550 OVER TRIB. OF BITTER CREEK,1.0 MILE SOUTH & 1.4 MILE WEST OF JCT. US-283/SH-19 IN Blair

$437,500

JACKSON 3272604 BRIDGE REHABILITATION

2017 -2021

US-62: US-62 OVER TURKEY CREEK, 3.7 MILES EAST OF HARMON C/L.

$950,000


Page 140


JACKSON RESURFACE

2017 -2021

SH-6; BEGIN 8.77 MI NE OF SH-34 & EXT. NORTH 6.06 MILES

$1,242,780

JACKSON 30060(04) GRADE & DRAIN

2017 -2021

RECONSTRUCT NAVAJO ROAD (PHASE II)

$2,000,000

JACKSON RESURFACE

2017 -2021

US-62 BEGIN 365 FEET WEST OF THE SH-34 JCT AND EXTEND EAST 7.56 MI TO THE DIVIDED 4 LANE SECTION.

$2,126,008

Jackson County 2022- 2026

Develop procedures to identify and collect traffic count data at specific locations within the county.

SPR/LOCAL


Develop method to track the implementation of projects and regularly update the public on the status of projects, programs and finances.

SPR/LOCAL


Identify the locations of major employment centers, including existing and proposed developments and identify types of transportation available.

SPR/LOCAL


Working with area employers and stakeholders develop a database and map identifying transportation needs

SPR/LOCAL


Develop database and mapping to identify the County’s underrepresented

SPR/LOCAL


Develop a data file and create a map identifying location of wind farms and pipelines and relationship to communities and the transportation system.

SPR/LOCAL


Develop a regional map that identifies tourism destinations and regionally significant facilities

SPR/LOCAL

Source: ODOT, SORTPO

jackson county oklahoma 2040 long range...

Documents